Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs
Issue 20 - Evidence
MONCTON, Wednesday, June 5, 2002
The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs met today at 2:00 p.m. to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.
The Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: It is a great pleasure for us to be in Moncton today. The special committee decided at the start of its work to hear the experts in Ottawa — those from Canada and a number of countries — in order to gather the maximum amount of information. We also want to hear the testimony of Canadians who work in the complex field of drugs and drug abuse.
[English]
We want to thank Mayor Jackson for allowing us to invade her kingdom, and for her kind approval of us being here.
I just want to remind witnesses that everything that is said here is covered by parliamentary privilege. Now that we have decided to leave things open, the parliamentary privilege covers the witnesses. Thus, whatever you say here cannot be used against you in court, in either a civil or or criminal proceeding.
Mr. Maillet, please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Achille Maillet, Director, Addiction Services, Regional Health: Mr. Chairman, I am the Director of Addiction Services in southeastern New Brunswick. I am accompanied by my colleague, Chantal Cloutier-Vautour, who has been a youth counsellor for approximately 12 years.
I thank you for inviting us to present our views to the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.
First of all, I would like to give you an overview of the addiction services we provide in southeastern New Brunswick.
[English]
At Addiction Services we are committed to promoting healthy lifestyles by reducing the misuse of alcohol, other drugs and gambling through the delivery of education, prevention, counselling and treatment services which include, of course, detoxification and outpatient programs.
Addiction Services staff at our office is composed of social workers, nurses, various counsellors and attendants. We all work together, taking a multi-disciplinary approach that is designed to provide a comprehensive range of services and programs to Southeast New Brunswick in both official languages.
We provide education, prevention and consultation services to various groups and individuals interested in acquiring more knowledge and skills in the field of addiction. More than 1,000 community education and prevention activities or services are conducted yearly by counsellors and other Addiction Services personnel to help mobilize community groups.
We also provide professional counselling services to individuals and ``significant others'' suffering from substance abuse. Staff members have also been trained in and are providing ongoing education and counselling services to gamblers and their families, as well as groups for youth, parents, women, the elderly, et cetera.
Our youth counsellors provide counselling and group sessions to adolescents. We have youth counsellors in 10 of our 15 high schools in the Southeast New Brunswick region. Moreover, the counsellors work closely with families, providing information sessions and support groups for parents who have adolescents with substance abuse problems.
We provide detoxification services for both men and women. The treatment area of the centre has 20 beds and is staffed 24 hours a day by nurses, attendants, nurse counsellors and inpatient addiction officers. A physician attends to clients on a regular basis.
Some of the other services we provide are in the area of employee assistance programs. We are very much in training for teachers, parents, health professionals, training for law enforcement personnel and other specialized groups. We have satellite offices in rural areas as well as programs for students and teachers. I mentioned parent support groups, youth groups, programs for offenders in conjunction with law enforcement personnel and the Solicitor General's department. We have also smoking cessation programs. We have referrals, of course, to other community resources as needed, since we work in partnership.
It is important to note that all of our programs are prevention-based programs; that is, primary prevention, secondary prevention and tertiary prevention. In other words, all of our programs are preventions programs with the overall goal of achieving healthier lifestyles for the people of the Southeast New Brunswick region. It is also important to note that now we deliver our services and programs in partnership with many community groups in our region.
Senators, in your document, recurring issues about cannabis are mentioned and I would like to comment briefly on each one.
First, the question is asked: Is cannabis a gateway drug? In other words, does it lead to other drugs, even harder drugs? Let me just say that in our detox. program, for example, in 75 to 80 per cent of all admissions the clients confirm that they have been using cannabis as their number one drug of choice. I must add that at the outpatient department at our services, the outpatient counsellors see almost 50 per cent of clients who come in and confirm cannabis only as their drug of choice, but they end up at our services. In the youth section, 90 per cent of the youth or the young people confirm that cannabis is their number one drug of choice. This has caused serious problems, as we see every day, which have brought them to our treatment centres. Of those clients that I have mentioned in detox, 80 per cent use marijuana, 15 per cent use hash and 5 per cent use hash oil. It is important to note that almost 100 per cent of cocaine users in our facility have used cannabis first.
The ``Best Practice'' document that you must know about derived out of Canada's drug strategy, states that the youth population is still using alcohol and cannabis as their favourite drugs. This is certainly the case, senators, for the adults in our region. Moreover, 5 per cent of our adolescents using cannabis will move to more powerful drugs.
Second, senators, the question was asked: Does cannabis use create dependency? Your document mentioned that 8 to 10 per cent of the adult population will develop a dependency. This represents about 200,000 Canadians. Moreover, if we use the same analogy, 15 per cent of young people will develop an addiction or dependency. We now know that a regular cannabis user is more at risk of developing a substance use disorder, for example sleeping disorders, depression, eating disorders and others. In ``Best Practice'' again, they say that in 29 per cent of the users we will see mental health disorders as well as co-morbidity issues.
Third, the question was asked: What are the negative effects of cannabis on physical or psychological health? Cannabinoids are moderately well suited to combat certain medical conditions, but we feel that this is only the case in terminal phases. Treatment with cannabis can cause other health problems. For example, the physical effects we know of are: chronic bronchitis and increased incidence of pulmonary diseases, reduced sperm mobility and testosterone levels, decreased immune system response, permanent cerebral lesions, and others.
With respect to psychological effects, we read often about decision-making, emotions and memory, which is stored, as we know, in the frontal part of the brain. Increased psychosis, depression, paranoia, behavioural problems, loss of motivation, and we read that clients are six times more likely to develop these symptoms than the non-users.
The fourth question that was asked in the document was: Is cannabis use related to criminality? Senators, I wanted to use this little caricature that I saw done recently showing, perhaps, the relationship between crime and drugs. The crime rate has really gone down, but the guy in the frame is saying, ``How can we do it? It is easy. First we legalize drugs, then we legalize armed robbery; then murder, then rape, then arson, et cetera, et cetera.'' A little off the record, but —
The Chairman: Is that the kind of evidence you are using to sustain your argument?
Mr. Maillet: Not really. As I said, this is just a comic.
The Chairman: I am interrupting you, sir, because we have tried to be very rigorous in our approach, and we have achieved that during the last 22 months. I am sure you understand why we are doing that.
Mr. Maillet: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Maillet: Is cannabis use related to criminality? Again, Canada's Drug Strategy, through the ``Best Practice'' document, says that the likelihood of becoming involved in crime increases as the usage or the abuse becomes more important or increases. Most of our young clients are involved in either trafficking, shoplifting or prostitution to supply their consumption because a lot are not self-sufficient as a result of being evicted from homes and/or schools, and because their behaviours are not acceptable to the rest of society.
Senators, the fifth question that was asked in the document was: ``Does cannabis impair driving capabilities?'' We find that 16 per cent of fatal accidents are caused by drivers under the influence of cannabis, since cannabis decreases their ability to maintain concentration and the decision-making process; a bit like alcohol. Cannabis is now considered by many to be a major cause of motor vehicle collisions. One study that we read recently recorded that figure as being as high as 45 per cent. It appears to be more elevated among young people under 25 years of age. These studies indicate that the reduction in task accuracy, the prolongation of reaction time, the reduction in lane position control, the impaired ability to follow a lead car, increased crashes, increased brake time and start time. That is from the ``Canadian Health Review'' and also the Department of Health and Epidemiology at Dalhousie University.
Your sixth question was: Are young people victims of cannabis? Senators, the professionals in the education system will tell you that the major problem encountered in class is having too many students under the influence of cannabis in the classroom.
A couple of years ago, in one of our New Brunswick high schools, we lost seven youths within a year. These tragic deaths had something in common in that most of these adolescents were cannabis users. Far from being a mild drug, cannabis is highly toxic and contains more than 400 chemicals as well as five known carcinogens. Five to 10 milligrams of THC is enough to produce dangerous intoxication. In addition, in the last 20 years the THC concentration has increased anywhere from 2 per cent to 40 per cent. There is even a study showing a percentage increase of 1,400 per cent in THC concentration.
Marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities in cells living in the lower respiratory tract. It is also associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage and poor pregnancy outcomes. That is from Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada.
Carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than in tobacco. As well, and as mentioned earlier, there is an increased incidence of pulmonary diseases, reduced sperm mobility, decreased immune system response and some brain damage.
It is also important to note that Syndrome A Motivational, which is a decreased motivation psychosis, is more frequent among users and, as well, intense anxiety, panic and depression, since cannabis is a major depressant and a hallucinogenic drug.
Senators, in conclusion, in terms of public policy I would strongly suggest that, in the future, we put more emphasis on prevention, awareness, education programs for adolescents, parents, teachers, health professionals, law enforcement personnel and other groups. All of that should be done in partnership with other community groups as well as other government agencies.
[Translation]
In our view, it makes no sense to legalize a drug, with all the question marks and conclusive facts we see as consequences of the use of cannabis. If it were to be done over again, I don't believe, based on the information we currently have, that we would want to legalize nicotine or even alcohol.
From the moment you consider legalizing a drug, you can conclude that it will be more readily available and, consequently, that it will be used more and that there will therefore be more problems.
Lastly, let's not forget that cannabis is not harmful because it is illegal, but rather that it is illegal because it is harmful.
Mr. Chairman, I wish you great wisdom in your proceedings.
Ms Chantal Cloutier-Vautour, Youth Counsellor, Addiction Services, Regional Health: I would like to add a few points. I have been an addiction counsellor for 12 years.
[English]
I have been working with at least 8,000 kids in our region. Some of those kids have discussed with me both the usage and the legality of drug usage in this region. Most of them understand that this phenomenon is certainly not to their advantage. Even the kids who are using on a regular basis understand the implication of criminality among users. For them, legalization would decrease the perception of risk currently associated with drug use. They really believe that since drug usage has been increasing in the past two years, they are seeing it as part of a major problem in their schools. That is what I have been doing with the kids. I have been working with my colleagues all these years, dedicating all of my time, and I do not think it is time to give up.
It seems so clear that, in the period of prohibition, alcohol was really a big problem. Now we know that alcohol has not worked for us, and has created so many addictions and at such a big cost to our society that I do not think we should make the same mistake with cannabis.
I am not sure if you have any questions. I would like for you to have some questions on what we see in our centre and how much work we do with those clients. I invite you to ask us as many questions as you have.
Senator Banks: Even though you have been very careful in your presentation to tell us the source of the information that you have given us, would you be so kind as to let the clerk have copies of those documents with the parts underlined or referred to so that we can easily find them? I think we probably have most of these studies.
Just to be specific, I am talking about the figure in your answer to our question 5: 16 per cent of fatal accidents and as high as 45 per cent, according to one study. Have you noted where those studies came from? I am concerned that we have as much information as we possibly can, and I would be grateful if you would let us have that information.
Mr. Maillet: We will provide that to the clerk.
Senator Banks: In your answer to question 3, perhaps you would give us the source of the comment, under ``Physical effects'', the fourth bullet, ``permanent cerebral lesions''? Would you please give us the source of that information specifically?
In addition, would you please tell us under ``Psychological effects'' the source of the comment, ``increased psychosis''? By ``increased'' I gather that you mean in patients where there is already a propensity to psychosis, cannabis can have the effect of increasing it. If that is what you mean then we are fine with that.
Mr. Maillet: That is right.
Senator Banks: The last bullet under that answer to question 3 is, ``Clients are six times more likely to develop these symptoms than non-users.''
Now I have some questions, if I may. In your point number 4, in answer to our question, in reading this paragraph I have to assume that you are talking about drugs in general and not cannabis in particular. Am I correct?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: You mean is cannabis the only drug that would create such an effect?
Senator Banks: For example, we have not heard previously that there are prostitutes on the street to support their cannabis habit, or that people are shoplifting for that purpose. Trafficking, yes, in the trade, but not that people are shoplifting to support their habit.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that. I work mainly with kids. Certainly, kids are not leaving their homes to do prostitution in order to create an addiction problem; it is quite the opposite. What actually happens is that when kids are using so much that it changes their ability to think and to function in their family, they will be asked to leave, and thus be evicted from their home. They will then have to survive on the streets, and the survival skills that they have are very limited since they have not graduated. Thus prostitution becomes the only means of survival for them sometimes. Sometimes it is also shoplifting. That is the only way, and I do see that on a daily basis, with the kids that I see as clients, that at some time they will have to survive in that way.
Senator Banks: Kids who are using cannabis, period?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Yes.
Senator Banks: But not other drugs?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Senator, they will sometimes, yes. They will be introduced at times by pimps and by other drug dealers on the street to other, more powerful drugs. However, they get to the street level because of that first drug.
Senator Banks: I suppose I have to accept that. I have not heard this before, that people are either kicked out of their homes for cannabis use or forced into prostitution by cannabis use. However, you say that you deal with that every day?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Every single day.
Senator Banks: In answer to our question 3 about the negative effects on physical and psychological health, you say that you are in favour of cannabis use for medicinal purposes only in terminal cases. ``Terminal'' as defined by what, or who? For example, multiple sclerosis is terminal in that it will not improve. We cannot make multiple sclerosis better. No one gets better.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: I am glad you mentioned that one because my sister has multiple sclerosis, and we have talked about this aspect many times. It certainly is not a solution. There are more beneficial medications right now for her to be using rather than using cannabis. Cannabis will create more respiratory problems for her than other types of medication that already exist on the market for that type of disease, and many other diseases as well.
Senator Banks: Some people with multiple sclerosis have told us that in respect to relieving their particular symptoms, which as you know are different from person to person, cannabis is more effective than other medications, and in fact in some cases gives the only effective relief that they get from some of their symptoms.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: I certainly understand where they are coming from. Since cannabis it is a depressant drug and helps them relax and forget about different issues, it certainly will help in that respect, but we cannot forget the increased risk of other kinds of disease that it could create for them. I believe they are working right now on a puffer for those kinds of medications so that they will not create as many problems for the respiratory system.
Senator Banks: That is right because there is no combustion in the puffer.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: At this time, however, yes, it creates more problems.
Senator Banks: In answer to our question number 1, you say:
Let me just say that in our detox, 75-80 per cent of all admissions, they confirm using cannabis as their number one (#1) drug of choice.
Surely they are not being detoxified for cannabis. They are there, surely, to be broken of some other substance or drug?
Mr. Maillet: Yes, for many of them there are other substances involved, whether it be alcohol or other drugs. However, a big percentage of those people are there because in using cannabis they have some of the same problems that they would have with alcohol. For example, in terms of their problems with relationships, financial problems, depression and all those problems, they arrive at our door with those problems. I am not saying that other drugs are not involved. In a lot of cases, yes, there are, but there are some who are coming to our door using only cannabis.
Senator Banks: Are they coming to you for detoxification?
Mr. Maillet: Detoxification involves just a little more than the physical detoxification, the drying-out period. We have a sort of ``mini rehab.'' We have counsellors, we have education sessions and all that stuff.
Senator Banks: Those people were there for purposes other than specifically a detox centre.
Would you talk to us a bit about the group sessions that you do with young people? How effective are they? How do they work? What do you find out?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: In 1996 there was a new model implemented in our region with the Tammy Bell approach. Tammy Bell is a social worker from the U.S., and her method is to create a different type of approach within the school system where we would work with kids who would be in different stages, from pre-contemplation, where the kids do not know the relationship between their usage and the negative consequences to their lives, and different stages like that. We have been holding those groups within the school where we meet kids weekly, sometimes daily, and we discuss issues such as family relationships and the direct effect of symptoms of their usage on their life, physical and psychological. However, it seems to me that very few people understand how the drug affects them physically and psychologically. Those kids cannot function very well in school, and in our group we are able to recuperate some of these kids to help them function in school. Thus we lose less kids. There have been fewer dropouts since we have been involved in the schools and working with those kids. These kids have very low concentration, very low memory, and very low self-esteem. So many issues come from their usage because when they start using that mild drug they stop maturing; they stop getting involved in sports, they stop growing, and they stop functioning within the school. We need to get them re-involved in their lives, in society, and that is what we do in those groups.
Senator Banks: Do the students volunteer to be a part of these groups?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Some of them do and some are referred by courts, some are referred by the school system, and some are referred by parents. I would say the larger percentage are coming on their own because they understand that it is affecting their lives.
Senator Banks: It sounds as though it is very effective.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: I think it is. I think we have very great success. By the end of this school year, the majority of kids who started with the group will graduate.
Senator Banks: Good for you.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: It is a success.
Mr. Maillet: If I may add, Mr. Chairman, those are the kids whom Ms Cloutier-Vautour is talking about, but we also have other players, other groups such as parents and teachers. In other words, there are other people completing the puzzle, if I may say so.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Before giving my colleague the floor, I would like to ask you a few questions about the population served by your service. You serve a population of how many inhabitants? How many thousands of people could have access to your services? And what is the specific clientele?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: A population of 80,000 persons.
Mr. Maillet: That is for Moncton.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: We exceed that number, but, in the immediate region, it is 80,000 inhabitants.
Mr. Maillet: And for the greater Moncton area, I would say 200,000 persons in all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: That is the general population?
Mr. Maillet: Yes, under my responsibility. The figures are comparable to the rest of the province. There are seven regions, and the figures given are for the province, but I am speaking as the director general for southeastern New Brunswick.
The Chairman: I assume you've described the situation of your services in your brief?
Mr. Maillet: Yes.
The Chairman: You are talking about those in your region?
Mr. Maillet: Precisely.
The Chairman: I am trying to see, in terms of numbers, how many persons on average use your services each year?
Mr. Maillet: Roughly 1,000 persons are taking a detox program, and 900 are taking counselling sessions on an outpatient basis. We are talking about approximately 2,000 persons. And we have 400 to 500 youths.
The Chairman: The detox services don't include young people?
Mr. Maillet: Yes, they can include young people. The figure of 1,000 persons is the total number of individuals in detox. And the figure of 900 refers to those who are taking counselling sessions, as I just said, on an outpatient basis. We also go into the schools.
The Chairman: If we look at the total number of youths who use your services, how many are there per year?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Four hundred and ten.
The Chairman: I have one final question. You listed the effects of drugs, both physical and psychological. Are they effects that people in the service are able to observe?
Mr. Maillet: I would have to check with the nurses who work in the field.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: They all agree on what they see. I do not have the exact figures.
The Chairman: Without dwelling on the figures, I have the same questions as my colleagues. This isn't the first time we have received people who provide services such as yours. We have even heard from a number of witnesses whom we asked specific questions on the physical and psychological effects. And when you talk about permanent brain lesions, that definitely fires people's imaginations.
We would also like to know whether you have detected this kind of effect in your region. If so, I would like it to be well documented, in a way that protects people's privacy.
We would like to have as rigorous a description as possible of how you discovered this and to know whether it affects more than one case.
It is possible to encounter effects specific to a region in more than one place. You are not required to give this to us right away. You could submit it to the clerk. We will give you the address and telephone number.
Mr. Maillet: What we are giving you is based on the research literature. With regard to symptoms, I can tell you that we see them, but I cannot tell you whether they are solely related to cannabis. I cannot answer you immediately in a very specific way, but I am going to respond to your request.
The Chairman: You are aware that health effects are a central concern of ours.
Mr. Maillet: Yes.
The Chairman: We are trying to understand all of these effects, and you seem to have a more exhaustive list than we have encountered to date. And that is what we want to focus on.
[English]
Senator Banks: I have one more question. I gave you a list of things that I requested, if possible, for you to provide for us documentation and sources, and so on. One which I omitted is your answer to question 2, about dependency. In the last sentence you say,
In 29 per cent of the users, we will see mental health disorders as well as co-morbidity issues.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: That is in the ``Best Practice Manual'' that I have right here that you can have access to.
Senator Banks: If you would make a note and refer it to the clerk, I would be grateful.
Senator Rossiter: I am interested in your programs for students and teachers as listed on page 2 of your brief. The students whom you were talking about, I presume, are in high school or junior high.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: I think you are asking if the kids I see are in high school or junior high?
Senator Rossiter: Yes.
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: We see both, but mainly our energy is spent on the high school students right now. We still see junior high kids, but we mainly spend our energy in the high schools.
Senator Rossiter: Are the teachers involved in this process as well with information that you bring to them?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: Yes, they are. We provide some training to all the staff within the schools and we ask them to be prepared to notice all the symptoms, the physical and psychological symptoms that they can notice, and refer those kids to us.
Senator Rossiter: Do you have any programs for the middle school, for junior high, to acquaint the children with all the information that you have about the use of drugs?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: We are presently working on a new model. I am glad you asked that question because one of the major obstacles that we are seeing as youth counsellors right now is that since we are spending so much time in the high schools, we notice that some kids are already in the addiction process by the time they reach high school. We understand that we need to spend more time in junior high schools, but we do not have the facilities or the resources to work with another group. We understand that we will have to change our focus very soon because we are missing a lot of kids who are certainly very well advanced by the time they reach high school. We definitely need to work on that issue.
Mr. Maillet: Certainly, we are very concerned about the fact that we are not in the middle schools as much, because prevention should start in Grade 5 at least. We have some programs, and the RCMP have the DARE program, for example. We are there in a minimal way, but if there is one area that needs to be reinforced it is in the middle schools.
Senator Rossiter: The Tammy Bell program that you spoke of, how does that operate? Do you work with children after the fact, after they have become involved or using?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: That is what they have been doing in the U.S., yes. Tammy Bell is an American, and she started this program or this model with older kids. It was implemented in 1996. However, in the past two years we have noticed a significant increase in usage among kids who are much younger than the kids we were seeing two years ago. Thus when we talk to kids who are 16 years old, they have been using drugs for at least four years. We now notice a big difference. When I started in 1990, kids at that time were just starting their usage in high school, but it is so much different now. We will have to readjust.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I have one final question, Mr. Maillet. How long have you worked in this field?
Mr. Maillet: In this field, nearly 25 years. I do a lot of work in the fields of education and administration, which includes detox and counselling. Our programs concern all forms of dependence. As I said earlier, all our programs are primary prevention programs. We try to prevent problems before they arise, with the help of parents and teachers.
I have been working in the prevention field for 25 years. Prior to that, I worked in public health at the Department of Health.
The Chairman: At the bottom of page 5, you mention THC concentrations of 40 percent. Does that figure come from a lab analysis that was conducted here in the region?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: It is Canadian, yes.
The Chairman: Where did you get these figures? Were they related to cannabis, hashish or hash oil?
Ms Cloutier-Vautour: They concerned cannabis and cannabis derivatives. It was 15 per cent for cannabis up to 40 per cent for hash oil.
The Chairman: So it is not just marijuana.
Mr. Maillet: No. We apologize for the lack of clarity.
The Chairman: As we told you at the start, we are going to give you the clerk's business card. Please do not hesitate to send us these figures quite soon because we are collating our information. Send us the information we have requested from you so we can give your testimony all the rigorous attention and probative force it deserves.
Mr. Maillet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are so convinced of our position on legalization and decriminalization that we occasionally allow ourselves to tell a little joke. We apologize.
The Chairman: It is quite all right.
Next we will hear Mr. Pierre Robert, from the Centre Portage. It appears he has not arrived.
[English]
Our next witness is Ms Beverly Best, Village Councillor, Village of Salisbury. Please proceed.
Ms Beverly Best, Councillor, Village of Salisbury: Honourable senators, I would like to thank the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin and the members of the Special Senate Committee for giving me the opportunity to express our views on cannabis. The topic itself is a sensitive one, and one in which most Canadians have differing opinions. I find the decision difficult because of the effects on our youth and on our Canadian values.
Canada is a great and wonderful nation, but when I stop and think about some of the changes I have seen in my relatively short life, I wonder if we are not eroding our values and lowering our standards, standards that make Canada a great place in which to live.
We have seen and heard of horrific crimes with massive loss of life lately due to terrorism. Terrorists acquire most of their funds through the drug trade.
Our youth are experiencing alcohol, cannabis, LSD and cocaine at a much younger age. Alcohol use and underage drinking are major problems across Canada. Prohibition did not work for alcohol so it was legalized, and is now a controlled substance. However, alcohol abuse has claimed many lives and destroyed families. Due to repeated public pressure and the outcry of victims, we now have stronger laws and court enforcement of these laws.
Should the Special Senate Committee decide to support the decriminalization of cannabis,we would like to see well- ritten and defined policies in place before the decriminalization takes effect. We would like to see illegal drug dealers handed longer sentences, heavier fines and mandatory drug rehabilitation.
Decriminalization does not mean legalization of cannabis. Therefore, what safeguards will be put in place for our educational system? Schools will, and should, continue with their policies of zero tolerance for the use and possession of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. Who will be there, or to whom could the schools go for protection of their educational values? The same could be asked for our workplaces where we must maintain a drug-free environment.
We have seen, and have been told, that cannabis users will become unmotivated, lazy, desire to do nothing, be affected by memory loss, poor concentration, depression, and low self-esteem. Chronic users do show aggressive, violent behaviour and become loners. Our educational system is suffering from the students being unmotivated and having poor test results. Are we supposed to allow students to be pushed along through the school system without regard to their marks and to the work ethic?
Through my recent experiences in working with a drug program, I have learned that education, prevention and harm reduction is a practice that does work, yet funding for centres and educational programs that can, and do, help our youth is extremely hard to secure, or is not funded at all. Addiction centres are funded by our already cash- strapped Medicare system. Often the centres do not know from one year to the next whether they will be able to continue to operate.
With the decriminalization of cannabis, there is the possibility of a new surge of users. Some may be youth who would not use cannabis because of a possible criminal record. Others, because of stronger peer pressure, will use it considering it to be ``safe''. Who will educate them and give them the valuable information in order that they can make a healthy choice and say ``No'' to drugs?
Statistics show that 5 to 10 per cent of users become addicted. By decriminalizing it, will we be creating a dependency on this mood-altering drug? The abuse always creates dependency. The user's attitude begins to change due to the effects of the drug on the central nervous system. It does lead to tolerance, thus creating a need for more. After a period of time, the individual will be looking for other drugs to change the way he or she feels. As with all drugs, cannabis is used to change the way we feel.
We feel part of the rationale for the move to decriminalize cannabis is the saving of money. This money could be diverted to educating our youth on illegal drugs. We could sustain programs and addiction counsellors in our schools and educate our children at a very young age on how to say ``No'' to drugs, and offer programs to help parents and families affected by drug and alcohol abuse.
Cannabis will still have to be purchased from a dealer, a person who is driven by money and greed, and has no conscience. What would prevent them from lacing cannabis with other drugs to guarantee a returning clientele? How can we protect our youth from dealers? Through proactive programs, and by teaching our children how to make healthy choices. We must also have strict laws on selling illegal drugs.
Today, our police forces have a difficult time convicting a person of driving impaired due to his or her alcohol abuse. Thanks to the breathalyser test, a conviction is possible and the driver can be charged at the scene. Impaired driving due to drugs requires a blood test and/or a urine sample. Both require a court order which can take a long time to obtain. Will there be a tool in place to speed up this method of removing drivers impaired due to drug use before an accident or a death occurs?
You have heard me lay out our questions and concerns on possible effects as a result of the decriminalization of cannabis. I spoke to a number of Canadians and passed out the discussion paper. All who came to me said, ``Yes, decriminalization is the way to go.'' No one advocated leaving the situation as it is.
We feel that the present system does place a strain on our police forces and our courts. Many youth just laugh about the current laws, showing a sheer lack of respect for our police and our laws. Judges are giving chances to our youth who are charged with possession in hopes of saving them from having a criminal record. I love my children, and kids in general. I hate to see a simple wrong judgment call or a poor choice selection on the part of a youth leave him with a criminal record which could stop him from getting ahead in life. Safeguards must be in place in order to protect our youth and not erode our values and therefore lower our standards.
With the on-going discussion of decriminalization of cannabis, we feel that the Government of Canada must take a serious look at the Young Offenders Act, stiffening the sentences for serious crimes committed by our youth.
What reaction will our more liberal approach to cannabis have on the relationship between the United States of America and Canada? The United States is our neighbour and our friend. Due to this relationship we should think about the effects our policies may have, but it should not be a deciding factor. Canada must do what is best for our nation and the Canadians who reside here.
In closing, I would like to say that I have touched on four important points associated with decriminalization of cannabis. The points we would like the committee to consider are:
1) Well-written and defined policies on cannabis before decriminalization takes place.
2) Our educational systems and workplaces must have safeguards in place to legally protect their rights to a zero tolerance environment.
3) Funds available for education, prevention and harm reduction programs. Addiction centres need separate and guaranteed funding.
4) Review and change our Young Offenders Act, stiffening sentences for serious crimes.
I would like to thank the committee for respectfully accepting my written views, and wish you every success on the outcome of your hearings.
Senator Banks: Thank you very much for being here. Are you Mr. Best?
Mr. Al Breau, Addiction Services, Health Region: No, I am Al Breau, the coordinator for the alcohol and drug program for the Village of Salisbury.
Senator Banks: Of which you, Ms Best, are a councillor?
Ms Best: Yes, I am. I am a councillor with the village. Through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I applied for a grant last October, and was successful in receiving a grant of $8,500 to run a six-month pilot program on drugs within the Village of Salisbury.
Senator Banks: Tell us about that briefly, please.
Ms Best: We are having round-table discussions: one in December and we will have one next week. Nine municipalities from across Canada are getting together and trying to combat drugs within their communities: what we can do, how we can reduce harm, and a proactive approach in education is our main focus.
Senator Banks: You are one of the nine municipalities?
Ms Best: Yes. We were the only rural community chosen.
Senator Banks: We know the program. Thank you very much, and congratulations.
Ms Best: Thank you.
Senator Banks: I have two questions to ask you. First of all, you made a point about cannabis as a gateway drug and you said that it increases tolerance and a user wants more. From what source did you obtain that information? From talking to users?
Ms Best: Mainly talking to users, some of the literature that I have read through the drug strategy programs, and also from personal contact with users.
Senator Banks: Did the users tell you that they developed a tolerance and wanted more cannabis in order to get the same kind of hit? Am I interpreting that correctly?
Ms Best: Yes. What they want is stronger cannabis. A lot of youth that I have spoken to are concerned about going on to other drugs, but they want a better fix. They want something more, and sometimes they do combine cannabis with alcohol, and at that point it can be lethal.
Senator Banks: You also mentioned that chronic users exhibit aggressive and violent behaviour. We have not heard that before. We have heard, in fact, the opposite, if anything. Could you tell us how you arrived at that opinion? I'm talking about cannabis in particular now, not other drugs, and not combinations of cannabis and alcohol.
Ms Best: I have seen it myself. Mr. Breau would also like to make some comments.
Mr. Breau: When they do not receive their fix on time, for example, a 17-year-old leaving school, if he does not receive his fix after school, he will go home exhibiting very moody behaviour, attitude behaviour and will start arguments, to a point where he will become violent and will slam the door leaving the house, and that kind of aggressive behaviour.
Senator Banks: Over cannabis?
Mr. Breau: Over cannabis; strictly over cannabis. No other drugs involved.
Ms Best: I have seen this firsthand.
Senator Rossiter: Would there not have been some other incidents in school or some tensions in school that would have caused this sort of temper tantrum, as you explained? Everything was peaceful and quiet?
Mr. Breau: It would be a normal day. Actually, I saw a person yesterday with the same sort of explanation. With the normal stresses of the day, as soon as he leaves the school, when he gets home, if he does not have his marijuana, his behaviour changes.
Senator Rossiter: Would he get the marijuana at home?
Mr. Breau: No, he will go get it from his drug dealer. But if he cannot find his drug dealer, naturally he is going to become aggressive and moody, having temper tantrums and these kinds of things.
Senator Rossiter: Would this be a person with a temperament of this nature?
Mr. Breau: Not at all. However, as soon as the drug leaves the body, it is crying for more, and that is the physical addiction that Mr. Maillet was talking about earlier; the withdrawal from marijuana.
The Chairman: For what period of time is that person like that?
Mr. Breau: We may be talking hours.
The Chairman: When you say ``hours,'' was it two hours or 10 hours?
Mr. Breau: I would say that they would probably start to experience emotional change within two or three hours.
Senator Banks: I am going to just jump into the discussion we are having. The reason we are so interested is that, in 22 months of hearings, we have never heard of this reaction before. We have heard all kinds of testimony about all kinds of things but we have never heard anybody say that a casual —
Mr. Breau: Excuse me. We are not talking about casual users, the one who will use a joint every two to three weeks. We are talking about a daily user of four or five joints a day.
The Chairman: We are talking of at least two grams per day of cannabis?
Mr. Breau: At least, some to a lesser degree.
The Chairman: What would be the age of that person?
Mr. Breau: Seventeen. He started using at 15.
Senator Banks: As far as you know, this person's problems have been caused by cannabis? What I mean is that it sounds to me as though this person has some bigger problems than just cannabis.
Mr. Breau: He will use alcohol minimally. He does not get intoxicated with alcohol, but does get intoxicated with marijuana.
The Chairman: I suppose you are familiar with the family environment, the work environment of that person, and that everything else is normal?
Mr. Breau: When it is not normal, that is when he is craving or withdrawing from marijuana. That is where the problem lies, where he becomes aggressive, has heavy arguments with Mom, there is no closeness with the family, and he is by himself.
Senator Banks: Are we talking about one person here out of all of the persons with —
Mr. Breau: I am just using that as one example. There are many examples that I could cite where young people are having the same experience.
Senator Banks: At that level?
Mr. Breau: At that level, yes.
Senator Rossiter: In your area?
Mr. Breau: Yes. I have also been employed with Addiction Services for 23 years, and I see it there all the time, too. It is basically what Mr. Maillet was referring to.
The Chairman: Are you sure that we are not talking about using more than cannabis?
Mr. Breau: Marijuana, that is it, on a daily basis.
The Chairman: Are you sure of that?
Mr. Breau: Yes. Now, that is what he has told me.
Ms Best: But there is no guarantee that who they are buying it from has strictly cannabis?
The Chairman: We are taking that as a fact, that there is a mix of all kinds of drugs. But we were talking about cannabis, which is the less tampered-with substance. Are you the only individuals who are working with those people, or do you have other professionals working with them?
Mr. Breau: Addiction Services.
The Chairman: The two people who were here before you?
Mr. Breau: Yes.
The Chairman: They are familiar with those cases?
Mr. Breau: Yes.
Ms Best: If I may say, it really does not surprise me that you have not heard that much about cannabis or about —
The Chairman: Oh, we have heard a great deal.
Ms Best: Or maybe you have heard about cannabis, but not this particular view of cannabis. In our round-table discussion we are dealing with mostly cities, and you know that we are a small community. We are only 2,000 in Salisbury. The people from the cities on that panel, they do not even want to look at cannabis. They are very concerned about other drugs. Thus, to my way of thinking, they would naturally kind of downplay the effects because they are looking at it from their own perspective. What they are worrying about is needle exchange, and those types of drugs such as acid, LSD and heroin. I know you have been to Vancouver, and there you will have seen that they spend half a million dollars on an ambulance service just for drug addictions.
Senator Banks: Our mandate is to focus for the moment specifically on cannabis, although it bumps into other things, obviously. We are very clearly focussed on cannabis. When we were in Vancouver and downtown Montreal, and you name it, we asked our questions specifically about cannabis, and we have not heard examples such as you are describing in Place St. Louis.
The Chairman: We have heard that type of reaction for other types of drugs, but not for cannabis.
What is the sleeping attitude or behaviour of that gentleman? Does he sleep well?
Mr. Breau: As far as I know, he sleeps well. That is all I can say. I really did not get into that sort of discussion with him.
The Chairman: How is he after his ingestion of marijuana?
Mr. Breau: More relaxed, more mellow.
Senator Banks: Has he talked to a psychologist?
Ms Best: This person has come forward only lately because of our program within the school. Within the theatre arts group at the high school, J. M. A. Armstrong High School, they did a drug presentation on addictions. It was presented to the classes from Grades 5 to 12. After each presentation, Al gave a speech, and perhaps something in his speech hit home with this young person and he has come forward.
Mr. Breau: His comment to me was this: ``I want to become the boy that I used to be.'' That was before the age of 15, because that is when he started using cannabis. He is now 17 and he has no motivation, no get-up-and-go, does not have a will to do anything. He is a loner. He has lost touch with his friends. He is very moody when he is not under the influence. Those are all comments coming from his mouth. He reported to me that at least 90 per cent of the people at his high school use marijuana.
The Chairman: Do they exhibit similar behaviour to him?
Mr. Breau: Not maybe to the extent that he is using, but they are using.
Senator Banks: Where do you suppose he gets enough money to buy four or five joints a day?
Mr. Breau: As reported earlier, there is probably crime involved in getting the money. A lot of students have part- time jobs, and all of their money goes directly to marijuana.
Senator Banks: You would have to have a fantastic part-time job in order to afford to buy four or five joints a day.
Mr. Breau: They know how to get it, and also the dealers front it.
The Chairman: Are you aware of the street value of a gram of marijuana?
Mr. Breau: No, at the present time I do not know the exact cost. Twenty dollars, perhaps, roughly. I know that he also reported that he owes his drug dealer a considerable sum.
The Chairman: Senators, our next witness is Sergeant Ed MacEachern of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Sergeant Edward J. MacEachern, RCMP: Thank you, honourable senators, for this opportunity. My name is Ed MacEachern. I am a sergeant with the RCMP.
Let me say, first of all, that as a member of the RCMP I welcome and look forward to your review of our country's current drug policies. As you know, the RCMP has already made its position on the decriminalization and legalization of currently illicit drugs known to both your Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs and the Parliamentary Committee, and it is to be hoped that your efforts are the beginnings of a governmental directional statement in the form of a national drug strategy.
New Brunswick is, I am sure, no different than any other province in terms of its law enforcement efforts, except perhaps on the basis of scale. The mandate of the RCMP in New Brunswick is to enforce laws, prevent crime and maintain peace, order and security. We carry out that mandate in the area of drug law enforcement as well. In my duties I am involved every day in that specific mandate.
I understand that the reason for my appearance here today is to provide the honourable senators with a snapshot of the drug law enforcement situation in New Brunswick. I shall try.
I am attached to the Federal Policing Branch of the New Brunswick RCMP at ``J'' Division Headquarters in Fredericton, where my specific duty is that of Drug Enforcement Coordinator. To that end, I work with those federal enforcement units that are our drug sections, or drug squads.
The RCMP has a contractual obligation to the Province of New Brunswick and, as such, we provide policing services to all rural areas of the province, a large number of the smaller service districts and small municipalities, and as well a significant number of larger municipalities. In addition, we have federal law enforcement units throughout the province, and for drug enforcement we have offices and suboffices in Bathurst, Moncton, Saint-Leonard, Saint John and Fredericton.
Simply put, our federal enforcement personnel dedicate themselves to larger scale investigations involving organized criminal groups at the provincial, interprovincial, national and international levels. Our provincial or contract detachments are tasked with targeting local or street level drug traffickers, but often, in the interests of addressing a significant local trafficking situation, our federal units combine resources with our detachments to pursue a specific goal.
I have been involved in drug law enforcement in the province for over 30 years. I have witnessed the growth and decline of many different kinds of street drugs. Cocaine has established itself as one of the drugs of choice over the years, and one of its more potent forms, crack, became firmly entrenched in the Saint John area between 1996 and 2000. Crack houses sprang up almost overnight, and along with those crack houses, the attendant violence.
Over the years, the demand for LSD and other of the psychedelic drugs has grown, then waned, then grown again. Heroin surfaced in our cities for short periods of time on several occasions over the years, including recently, and currently there is a marked increase in the abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs, in particular Dilaudid, a legal, pain-killing drug with heroin-like properties. New Brunswick's prescription policies have been heavily criticized of late by American authorities for being overly lax, thus impacting heavily on the abuse patterns with respect to Dilaudid and other similar drugs in the bordering State of Maine.
Through all of this, cannabis in its three most common forms, marijuana, hashish and hash oil, has remained the most prevalent illicit drug.
In drug enforcement in New Brunswick, as elsewhere in the RCMP, our investigational mandate insists that we prioritize our work by focussing on organized crime groups. In so doing, of necessity we target groups and individuals that deal in a wide variety of controlled substances. Drug traffickers are motivated by profits, and in the New Brunswick experience they seldom specialize over the long term in any specific drug.
In my years in New Brunswick law enforcement, I have yet to meet the drug trafficker who is motivated by altruistic factors. Profit is his only guiding principle, his only measure of success. If you remove his ability to deal in cocaine, then on the very next business day he will switch to amphetamines. If you remove his ability to profit from marijuana, then he will deal in heroin or he will devise another means to obtain marijuana. A drug trafficker is a drug trafficker, and his commodity is whatever is the easiest to obtain. This statement is true of the Friday night street-corner hustler in marijuana cigarettes, and it is true of the multi-kilo cocaine importer with his offshore accounts and lavish lifestyle, and it is true of our criminal organizations. These people traffic in misery. They destroy the lives of individuals and entire families. The police community in New Brunswick endeavours to prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent possible.
In recent years in New Brunswick, our major drug investigations have shown that organized groups operating here have well-established links with traditional, organized crime elsewhere in Canada and North America, as well as in European countries. The termination, since January of this year, of intertwined investigations in Saint-Léonard and other small towns in Northern New Brunswick, as well as Moncton, Fredericton and Sussex, have served to reinforce this knowledge. Clear links between organized crime groups were once again demonstrated. The illicit drugs and cash confiscated in those investigations and the seizure of funds and property known to have been obtained or generated by crime will run into the millions of dollars in value and include marijuana, hashish, cocaine, chemical drugs, houses, automobiles, summer homes, expensive personal items and so on.
I know this committee wants to focus on cannabis and the questions of decriminalization and legalization. There is a belief held by some that if we were to legalize, for example marijuana, we would essentially deny criminals and criminal organizations of their profits. Without debating the specific merits or shortcomings of such a proposal, I would hope that whoever are ultimately the decision-makers at the end of the debate would exercise great caution before applying such an axiom, even only as part of an overall rationale. I would point out that alcohol and tobacco are legally and governmentally controlled, yet there is an obvious, thriving black market in both of these items. Wherever there is an opening, organized crime of some stripe will be only too willing to step in and exploit the situation.
I know that these people will not adopt the position that since the government is taking steps to legalize marijuana there will thereafter be no room for them to profit. Our government has recently made great strides in enacting legislation with sufficient teeth to combat organized crime because it has recognized just how insidious, violent, devious and imaginative these groups can be.
In New Brunswick, we also investigate the cultivation of marijuana. Last year, in just two raids alone, 24,000 mature marijuana plants were seized in Northern New Brunswick. These two marijuana fields were guarded by armed men. When our members, accompanied by a dog master and a search dog, approached that field, our dog was shot by one of the suspects, though luckily not fatally. This particular investigation once again established clear links to organized crime figures elsewhere in Canada.
There are other examples in New Brunswick in the past two years where marijuana fields were guarded by booby traps: for example, trip wires which would trigger explosive devices such as homemade shot guns that were designed to at least cripple, if activated. This is not the work of people devoted to marijuana's personal use.
That is not to say that people do not grow marijuana for exclusively their own use. Of course they do, but we do not proactively investigate that level of production or producer. However, in the normal course of our duties, if we happen across offences such as cultivation or possession of minor numbers of plants or minor amounts of marijuana, then of course we do not turn a blind eye or ignore violations of the laws that we are sworn to uphold. These drugs are seized and, where warranted and appropriate, charges are laid.
In New Brunswick last year there were some 400 reported cases of charges for possession of cannabis. I do not know how many of those offences involved repeat offenders, but I would think that a general characterization would be that the majority of these cases came about as a result of police officers doing other duties and coincidentally being faced with relatively minor marijuana seizures. That would account for most of them. It has not been my experience that members of the RCMP include possession cases in the planning phases of their activities; rather, they encounter these offences in the normal pursuit of their duties or incidentally to the arrest of individuals for other reasons.
I could go on; however, I believe that what I have said thus far paints a fairly accurate picture of the drug law enforcement situation for the RCMP in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick at least you cannot have an examination of any one illicit drug's enforcement picture without examining multiple illicit drugs because they are very much linked by the very traffickers we are chasing. Marijuana and other drugs are commonly traded for each other, and drug dealers are routinely informed by their suppliers, often in the middle of such deals, that the hashish they had agreed to sell earlier has suddenly become unavailable so instead they are offered cocaine, marijuana or Dilaudid.
That concludes my presentation.
Senator Rossiter: Does Dilaudid go by another name?
Sgt. MacEachern: It is not that we are using a great deal of that here in New Brunswick, senator. There may be other names for it, but Dilaudid is what we normally call it. Similar drugs such as Oxycodone, and so on, are available in Maine and sometimes in New Brunswick, but Dilaudid is usually what it is called. On the street they are referred to as D's, or D8's, referring to the size of the capsules.
Senator Rossiter: What is the original purpose of the drug?
Sgt. MacEachern: The legally intended purpose is that it is a painkiller, and it is used to alleviate severe pain. It is a legal drug and prescribed by doctors.
Senator Rossiter: I was thinking of another drug that is a legal prescription drug that is misused.
Senator Banks: Thank you, sergeant, for being here. You said that you reckoned that most of the simple possession charges which are brought by your colleagues, when they are simple possession and not for purposes of trafficking, are not of big-time bad guys. The drugs have been found incidental to other things. We have heard that, too. Therefore a very significant number of people in Canada who, for what many people regard as a case of bad judgment, or bad luck, or something like that that does not have a great deal to do with being threats to society, are therefore saddled throughout their lives with, if not a conviction at least a criminal charge. When they are charged, they are fingerprinted and all those other things. We have heard from a great meany people who say that the vast majority of these people are not a threat to society, nor will they ever be as a result of marijuana, in particular, or likely much else. Neither would they otherwise likely break the law. However, here we have about 30,000 people a year, a significant number of whom, if not the vast majority, have been charged, as you say, incidentally on other matters.
What is your personal view of that fact? We have heard both sides. We have heard a lot of people say, ``Tough''. Nobody can say that they do not know that it is against the law, that they were raised in a bottle, so you take your lumps. On the other hand, we have heard many people say that there is a great disadvantage to having a criminal charge with regard to travel to other countries and to employment, and your life is, in effect, partly ruined by an almost incidentally important thing in your life. What is your personal view of that from your standpoint, Sgt. MacEachern, as a policeman?
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes, and also a father.
My personal view, Senator, I suppose would vary from situation to situation. Looking at the generic statement you are making there that otherwise relatively innocent people, young people perhaps, will carry with them a criminal record for the rest of their lives, will carry a criminal record with only that incident on that record for the rest of their lives, I think that could sometimes be a little bit misleading. There are all kinds of measures available, legal measures, for a person who has done only that to rid himself of that criminal record; all kinds of very simple methods, such as applying for a pardon to rid himself of that record. That, I suppose, is one solution available to the person who finds himself carrying the burden of a simple, stupid mistake made when he was just 18 years old.
Having said that, I do not think most police officers would suggest for a moment that they agree that someone should carry a record for a simple possession charge. I even hate to use the words ``simple possession.'' Again, we believe that there are remedies besides carrying that record with you for the rest of your life. There are steps that the person himself can take. There is also the notion that not everyone is fingerprinted. With respect to all of those 30,000 people that you referred to, I would suggest that if they do not already have clearly established criminal records for other matters, they are probably not fingerprinted. In particular, if it is for offences under the new legislation, the CDSA, for offences of less than 25 grams, I believe it is, they are not fingerprinted. If they are fingerprinted then they have the right, even in court, even if they plead guilty, to ensure that a criminal record does not result. They have that right. It is a summary conviction offence, and for summary conviction offences, unless they are either/or offences, you have the right to ensure that a criminal record does not result.
Therefore I am not sure that I buy totally into the arguments that people will be saddled with records for the rest of their lives. Having said that, though, I do agree with the overall tone of that argument, that I do not want to see a young man or a young woman carry around a criminal record for the rest of their lives for — and again I hesitate to use the term ``simple possession,'' although I understand where that argument comes from. I guess that is my answer, sir.
Senator Banks: You referred to the fact that a black market would pop up anyway, regardless of what happens. Let us assume that somehow the penalty for possession was either lessened or we loosened that up one way or another. If that were to happen, how would the black market spring up anyway? If I were a drug dealer and one of the things I had in my satchel was marijuana, and the person to whom I want to sell this marijuana can go down the street and somehow either have it or buy it by a means other than through me which is legal, let us say, or less onerous in its penalties, how am I to convince somebody that they should buy my pot, as opposed to whatever he may be able to obtain elsewhere by some means which has a lesser penalty attached to it?
Sgt. MacEachern: I guess, senator, the way I would answer that is to point to the black market that exists in the other commodities; liquor for example.
Senator Banks: Are there bootleggers in New Brunswick?
Sgt. MacEachern: I believe your question has been answered, senator.
Senator Banks: Do the liquor stores close at two in the afternoon or something?
Sgt. MacEachern: No, but what we have, for example, is investigations of individuals, organized criminals — and I use loosely the term ``organized crime'' when I say that — who are supplying homemade liquors to bars, and it is going into bottles and being sold at bars but it is not distilled by licensed distilleries under regulated conditions. There is a black market, right there.
There are examples as well of what we used to know as bootlegging that still goes on, to some extent. Certainly not to the extent that it did in the past because there are Service New Brunswick liquor stores almost everywhere throughout the province now, whereas years ago there would be liquor stores only in major centres, and they closed at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or some such thing as that.
However, there are ways, and I suppose all I am saying when relating that to marijuana is that I do not have the specific answer you are looking for as to how they would do it. But I can assure you, sir, that they would, when the time came.
Senator Banks: If I were a bar owner, and if I know the right people, I can buy some liquor at, I presume, less than the rate charged by the liquor control board?
Sgt. MacEachern: Certainly.
Senator Banks: And sell it as bar stock in my bar?
Sgt. MacEachern: If you are so inclined, yes, you can do that.
Senator Banks: Then what happens?
Sgt. MacEachern: That happens, and it also happens that stolen and smuggled American liquor, stolen Canadian liquor, also finds its way into the hands of nefarious groups or individuals who then sell it to sometimes suspecting and sometimes unsuspecting bar owners, and so on. Thus there is a black market to be found, as long as you have an imagination.
Senator Banks: When it comes to stolen stuff, there is a black market in everything.
Sgt. MacEachern: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: As long as somebody steals a carload of tires or blue jeans, there is a black market for those goods?
Sgt. MacEachern: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: How do you think you are doing with coastal smuggling of illicit drugs in New Brunswick? People put into small harbours at which you do not have a detachment, and in which there is not a 24-hour customs officer, and someone could put in and take God knows what off the boat and then be gone before anyone knew what happened. Do you think there is much of that going on? Let me just broaden the question a little bit, and I am sorry if I am treading on another committee's bailiwick here a little: Do you have the means, at sea, of monitoring that situation occasionally, or having a peek at it, or do you have people in whatever cove who are likely to give you a call if some strange ship goes in at a funny time?
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes sir, we do. Just like our land-based enforcement programs, it is limited by our resources, but we have partnerships with the Canadian Armed Forces; we have partnerships with the Canadian Coast Guard. We also have partnerships, of course, with our American friends. We have community-based programs such as coastal watch programs whereby we endeavour to educate the people who live in these secluded places, or near these secluded places, to advise us — pick up the telephone, make an anonymous call and advise us when they see something suspicious, and so on.
Therefore, the answer to your question is yes, with our limited resources, we do what we can to address those offload situations that you are referring to. How much of a dent are we making? I suppose when we make that seizure next Friday night off the coast of Saint John, the next day we still see drugs on the street. Having said that, it is hard to measure the rate of success. It is extremely hard to measure.
The Chairman: What is the size of the black market related only to cannabis in New Brunswick?
Sgt. MacEachern: I am not sure what you mean by size, senator.
The Chairman: The size in dollars per year.
Sgt. MacEachern: Millions and millions of dollars.
The Chairman: Do you have a number in mind, 10, 20, 30?
Sgt. MacEachern: If I were to say that the dollar value that I would put on the illicit black market in cannabis, marijuana and hash oil in New Brunswick was $15 million, I would be low-balling that figure. That would be a low figure, I believe.
The Chairman: Would you say, then, between 15 and 25?
Sgt. MacEachern: I would say easily that, senator, yes.
The Chairman: What is the street value of a gram?
Sgt. MacEachern: Depending on what the dealer was purporting to be the quality of that gram, anywhere from $10 to $25.
The Chairman: In New Brunswick are there people who have an exemption under the new regulation scheme?
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes, there are.
The Chairman: Do you know who they are?
Sgt. MacEachern: Do you mean with the medical restrictions and so on?
The Chairman: Yes.
Sgt. MacEachern: I do not know who they are, but certainly the government knows who they are, and I believe the police in their areas know who they are, yes.
The Chairman: Okay. The police are informed?
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes.
The Chairman: They know where those people live?
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you have any reports of abuse by those people?
Sgt. MacEachern: No.
The Chairman: What is the lowest THC level found in New Brunswick and what is the highest?
Sgt. MacEachern: The lowest would probably be down around three — and I am talking about marijuana now. The highest would probably be — and I do not think I am guessing here; if my own recollection serves me well, probably in the neighbourhood of 20 to 25.
The Chairman: On cannabis alone?
Sgt. MacEachern: On marijuana.
Senator Banks: And higher in the oils?
Sgt. MacEachern: Oh, of course, yes. Very high in marijuana or hashish oil. I was going to say moderate — there is no such thing as moderate, but moderate in terms of these numbers in hashish.
The Chairman: In Salisbury, you have heard the story that we did, and the questions and answers we had with those people.
Sgt. MacEachern: I was fortunate enough to be stationed there, sir, yes.
The Chairman: There is a very effective pusher there.
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes.
The Chairman: You know exactly what I mean by effective. He is having some significant success.
Sgt. MacEachern: Yes.
The Chairman: I am sure you will inform the proper officers who are in charge of that area, too.
Sgt. MacEachern: I am sure I will be told that they already know, sir.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our next witness is Mr. Mike Patriquen. He is a member of the Marijuana Party of Canada.
Mr. Mike Patriquen, Marijuana Party of Canada: Senators, I had great difficulty in deciding on which particular aspect of the cannabis prohibition to address you. I examined what has already been said to you and the questions that you raised subsequently. I have noticed that the committee is seeking more precise areas in which to reduce any harm caused by cannabis and the prohibition surrounding it. It has been mentioned time and time again that the greatest harm in the cannabis prohibition is found in the laws surrounding the prohibition, not in any great harm that could come from the cannabis itself. This is the problem I would like you to address.
I would ask you to recall any testimony you have gathered to this point on the history of the cannabis laws in Canada. Cannabis was merely added as an amendment to the Opium Act in June of 1923. Parliamentary debate was limited to, ``Gentlemen, there is a new drug added to the schedule.'' Canadian Judge Emily Murphy had been on a crusade to rid the country of the ``Yellow Curse'', Opium, when cannabis was in the initial throes of being outlawed by the U.S., worldwide.
The initial press releases from the Hearst chain played cannabis up to be something evil. They had their people coin a new name for it, ``marijuana''. Scenarios were painted of crazed Mexicans raping white women while under the influence of marijuana. Judge Murphy had a very strong connection with these American interest groups, which included the Duponts and the Rockefellers. She, while crusading against Opium, picked up the American message against cannabis and railed on about the evils of marijuana.
Her cries were picked up by Macleans magazine in a series of articles. Cannabis was described as an evil substance, instantly addictive. One puff would turn a person into a homicidal maniac. All of the reefer madness yellow journalism. From that came the Canadian prohibition despite the fact that no one knew anything about cannabis except that it seemed to be popular with Mexican immigrants to the U.S., who were portrayed as a threat to white jobs and white women. That was the spin that was being put out by the Hearsts.
The sentencing provisions put in in our country were draconian: jail for use or possession; up to life imprisonment for possessing with the intent to sell; up to seven years for continuing to grow hemp, which was a very popular crop at the time; seven years minimum mandatory for bringing the substance into the country in any amount; whipping, at the judge's discretion.
Over the years, only two substantial changes have been made to these sentencing laws. Whipping at the judge's discretion has been repealed, as has the minimum seven-year sentence for importing. It was found to be cruel and unusual punishment and subsequently unconstitutional.
My focus here will be on the harm caused by the cannabis prohibition in Canada through the harsh imposition of the laws surrounding it, and those laws themselves. I will speak at times through grievous personal experience.
Of the 65,000 cannabis arrests in Canada in the year 2000, 45,000 were for simple possession. I submit that 45,000 Canadians that year alone have had their lives torn apart by just that — smoking pot. A criminal record, no graduate school, limited travel opportunities, limited employment opportunities, all over nothing.
I started smoking pot in 1970 while I was attending high school. I looked into it, tried it, saw nothing wrong with it and continued to use it. Open-minded people should have the freedom to make their life choices as they please. At least, that is what we were being taught in the schools at that time.
In the mid-seventies, while attending the third year of a pre-law degree program at university I was busted one Saturday night at a university party for a lid of pot which I had just purchased for 20 bucks. I only had to pay a fine, but the criminal record came with it. No law school. Not even any job prospects with major business. All dreams gone, just like that, over nothing.
When living in Jamaica in 1982, I assisted an old university friend in purchasing some cannabis. It turned out later that this was taken back to Canada. I was implicated, charged, and I voluntarily returned to Canada for the trial. The trial judge, on hearing the evidence, found me to be a peripheral party but he also found that he had to sentence me to the mandatory minimum seven years of federal incarceration, which I served in one form or another. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court of Canada has since deemed this sentence to be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
By then, 1982, through my involvement with marijuana and the harsh sentencing laws surrounding it, I had not only lost all hope of a career but had also headed towards a seven-year sentence of federal incarceration. I have the right, if only from that, to address you on the severity of these laws.
In 1992, shortly after the completion of the seven-year sentence, I was arrested for growing cannabis. The court heard that this occurred during a period that I was sick. In 1997 I was sentenced to 13 months in jail for this offence.
The period between 1992 and 1997 was consumed by a preliminary inquiry, a jury trial in which I was acquitted, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia by the Crown, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by the defence, and then a second jury trial wherein I was found guilty of growing one plant.
With all the murders, rapes and robberies with which the police, courts and prisons should be dealing, this type of investigation and prosecution was not in the interests of the Canadian public or a defensible use of limited resources. Resources are always called limited when referring to the defendant, such as when denying legal aid. They are never in short supply when required by the federal Crown or the RCMP, or by the penal system when locking up non-violent offenders.
My son was born the day prior to my being charged with conspiracy to import cannabis to Canada. He was born in Montego Bay, Jamaica. My wife was eight months pregnant when I was charged with growing pot in 1992. My daughter was four years old from that pregnancy when I was sentenced to jail in 1997 for growing that one plant in 1992.
In February of the year 2000, I was charged with commercial offences for growing pot. I was remanded to jail and refused bail due to prior offences, all of which I have just noted. In June of 2000, I was again arrested on cannabis charges that allegedly occurred prior to the first arrest date. Two separate indictments mean a doubling of all costs and time for all the parties concerned. The federal authorities do not care about cost. That is nothing to them. They hope to financially ruin any defendant and force him or her into a guilty plea.
A few months ago, after years of court wrangling to get the charges straight — a time that I will testify has cost our entire family their physical, emotional and financial health — I pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and conspiring to sell marijuana. A modest amount of marijuana was involved, 4.5 kilos. I expect in August of this year to be sentenced to six years federal incarceration for this charge.
Half of Canadians do not think the offence should even be an offence. Six years is a long time for rehabilitation. How do you rehabilitate someone who merely thinks as do half of the Canadians around him? To attempt to change that basic thought is not rehabilitation but pure mind control.
In August of 2001, I received a federal exemption to the marijuana laws to use, possess and produce marijuana. In April of this year I was forced to go through the rigorous re-application procedures of the new, more open, transparent, caring and compassionate laws surrounding cannabis access for medical use. Instead of only having my personal physician re-apply, in addition I required two specialists. Dr. Mary Lynch, who has testified before this committee, signed my application, as did her colleague Dr. Clark. Dr. Lynch, as you know, is the Director of the Pain Management Unit at the Victoria General Hospital in Halifax and the top cannabis researcher for Health Canada. The only change the specialists made to my exemption was to say that the initial exemption dosage must be increased by 250 per cent.
I now find myself in a number of very ironic positions. I am being sent to a federal penitentiary for a very lengthy period of time for doing something that I now have a federal licence to do, with the exception of selling some of it.
As a side note, polls show that only a small minority of Canadians, and even Americans, support current drug laws regarding cannabis. On a recent episode of The Simpsons a doctor, while talking about marijuana, said, ``It's only illegal these days if you enjoy it.'' That just about sums it up.
The other ironic position is medical. I now have three doctors, two of them pain specialists, who have signed on their reputations by saying that nothing will control my constant, chronic pain other than cannabis. They have stated that every other treatment has been tried and has failed, or has no reasonable chance of success. Nothing works but pot.
I am being sentenced to a federal penitentiary for six years where no pot is available. Anne McLellan has recently stated that it will be a ``number of years'' before government pot is available to the exemptee's in need, such as myself. You cannot grow your own in prison, yet I am one of the 102 Canadians who qualify to hold a production licence to grow pot for medical needs.
Any other health condition requiring any treatment whatsoever will be guaranteed to be provided by Corrections Canada except cannabis treatment. It is currently unavailable, and I am being sent to jail to suffer, with no treatment, primarily for growing it!
That is not the end, though. Almost destroying a family unit over the father growing pot was not enough. The RCMP noticed that we owned a home in the suburbs of Halifax. They decided to seize it. We took a mortgage on and purchased our modest home in 1988. In 2001, 13 years later, I pleaded guilty to growing some pot six months earlier, most of which the police seized. They taped me saying that I had lost money, yet they initiated proceedings to forfeit our family home. Why? To throw my wife and children out on to the street while I am federally incarcerated. The federal authorities do not like outspoken activists such as myself and what I do. They tend to squash all such attempts.
During the course of the RCMP investigation into our affairs, my wife was unjustly terminated from her managerial position of 10 years. Just prior to the investigation, Melanie had been the shining star of her national organization. Melanie, though not being under any suspicion whatsoever of cannabis involvement, and being known to have had a career since high school, was also charged with being in possession of the proceeds of crime, that being the family home.
Having expended all of our funds defending the cannabis charges, we were left financially embarrassed while attending the preliminary inquiry into the proceeds of crime affair and we are now forced to defend ourselves against a team of RCMP investigators, federal prosecutors and their forensic accountants. The inquiry began in April and is not expected to be complete for quite some time yet. If either of us are committed to stand trial on the matter, it will mean financing at least $80,000 in professional fees to attempt not only to protect our innocence but the $50,000 equity in our home.
It is not just the laws that are draconian; it is the imposition of and the enforcement of them. The federal Crown, having few areas of responsibility to prosecute, goes gung-ho on these pot-related charges. The RCMP see pot growers as easy marks, and target them for that reason. Lots of press, easy busts, big sentences such as in this case. They should be out earning their money instead, looking after the crime that is plaguing us.
I hope I have correctly passed on these personal, on-the-street pot law experiences that I have acquired over a lifetime. I request that you please issue a recommendation to end the prohibition.
The Chairman: When you were sentenced to the seven years, what date was that?
Mr. Patriquen: That would have been March 4, 1985.
The Chairman: And it was for trafficking in cannabis?
Mr. Patriquen: Conspiracy to import marijuana, 60 pounds.
The Chairman: Are you aware that since 1996, possession of less than 30 grams is not subject to a criminal record? I am not talking about you because you just gave us two pages on yourself in that registry.
Mr. Patriquen: In application forms for employment with major concerns, for visa applications and for applications to graduate school, applicants are asked the question ``Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence?'' not ``Do you have a criminal record?'' or not ``If we go looking for a criminal record, will we find it?'' There are any number of ways to get around that, and that was a very small Band-Aid approach to a very major problem.
The Chairman: I know, but perhaps you could say we are playing with words. Strictly speaking, the charge is not a criminal offence, less than 30 grams; it is simple possession.
Mr. Patriquen: I noticed while reading your Web site that you defined decriminalization as removing simple possession from the Criminal Code and the criminal penalties that went with it. I must point out that that is an error.
The Chairman: We are not saying that.
Mr. Patriquen: Mr. Chairman, it was on your Web site. I read it this morning.
The Chairman: If you take our document and you look at the chart you will see at the top.
Mr. Patriquen: It says repeal Criminal Code sections on possession. What I am getting at is that none of these cannabis offences are in the Criminal Code. They are part of the CDSA, which does not form part of the Criminal Code. It is a separate body of federal statute. As a matter of fact, this question arose and had been put forth to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1979 in the case of Patrick Howser, where the Supreme Court of Canada said that cannabis offences are not criminal in name, nature or pith and substance. They went on to say that these types of offences are nothing more than a breach of federal regulations, such as a breach of the Telecommunications Act or a breach of the Aeronautics Act. The only reason that anything criminal comes in here is that since the prison penalties are so severe, we have to track them, and the only way to track them is through using the criminal record system. I just thought I would point that out.
The Chairman: You agree with me, then, that possession of less than 30 grams, since 1996, is not a criminal offence? It is a summary conviction infraction. Do you agree with me?
Mr. Patriquen: I have heard that. I cannot say that I have researched it.
The Chairman: You have talked a little bit about the new medical use of marijuana.
Mr. Patriquen: Yes.
The Chairman: Can you elaborate on what process you went through with the three physician reviews, you or friends of your organization? Can you explain to the committee your personal opinion or the view of your organization towards that regulation?
Mr. Patriquen: I can tell you what our organization thinks about it, and I can give you my personal experiences, whichever you prefer, or both.
My personal experiences were that it took eight months from the time my doctor initially applied, after a year of diagnoses and trying other treatments. It was eight months from the time we applied until the time that I received my exemption in August of 2001. I was told that I could grow 10 plants, which worked out to two grams a day. Two weeks prior to that, the new medical marijuana access regulations came into force, and they told me that I would not have to re-apply under the new regulations but it would take effect the following year when I wanted to re-apply, and I would have to apply under the more stringent rules, which I have just done. It is very difficult, given what is being put out by the Canadian Medical Association and their insurers, to find any doctors whatsoever who will even consider talking about marijuana as a medical treatment. Ninety-nine per cent of doctors in the country, from my experience and from the experience of others in the party, will not even talk to their patients about it because the Canadian Medical Association told them not to, number one. Also, they got a very clear letter from their insurers for malpractice insurance saying that if they got a claim for prescribing this substance, then they would not be covered.
However, I was fortunate enough to be taken as a patient at the pain management unit at the Victoria General Hospital, and Dr. Mary Lynch is very familiar with this topic. She looked at using it as a treatment, and on further examination she saw that it was indicated in my case. I consider myself very lucky. It is a very rigorous procedure.
I guess as far as the party view goes and my political views go, the whole medical marijuana access regulations are nothing more than window dressing for the federal government following the Parker decision in Ontario, which I am sure you are aware of. They had to come up with something, otherwise certain sections of the CDSA would have been struck down as unconstitutional, so they put these in. However, access is almost impossible. Nobody knows but Health Canada how many applications they have received over the last 10 months, but I know for a fact that they have approved less than 275 of them for use and 102 to produce. Therefore, it is nothing more than window dressing.
They called me in December and told me that we would have access to this product grown in Flin Flon in February, that it was already grown and that they would process it in January.
The Chairman: When did they call you? Who called you, and what did they tell you?
Mr. Patriquen: I had a case officer, and I cannot remember his name.
The Chairman: When was that?
Mr. Patriquen: That would have been in late December. I was told that we would be having access to this product by February. The only thing left to do was to find out the distribution method of choice, whether it would be through courier service or through a pharmacy. These were a couple of things that Health Canada had to look after. They also had to look at the price. They said ``If we have to charge for production costs and distribution, it will be approximately $10 a gram, and if we only have to charge for distribution costs, it will be about $2 a gram.'' After that, nothing was heard for quite some time. Then Mr. Rock left and Anne McLellan became the minister, and she made her statement shortly after assuming the Minister of Health responsibilities that this product would not be distributed at all; that it was going to be destroyed.
The Chairman: I am sure you are familiar with the various compassion clubs there are in Canada in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.
Mr. Patriquen: Yes, sir.
The Chairman: Are there any of those organizations in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Patriquen: One fellow has had the great courage to start a very small non-storefront operation in Halifax, and he has the constant attention of the media and the police. He is, quite frankly, scared to death.
The sentences in Atlantic Canada are probably 10 to 20 times more severe that they are as you move West. For that reason, there are no compassion clubs here.
Senator Banks: I am asking you this question because you are not entirely inexperienced in these regards — why do you suppose those sentences are stiffer here? I really do not think you mean that they are 10 to 20 times more severe, but that they are more severe. Why do you think that is?
Mr. Patriquen: I have to tell you, sir, that I have researched the sentences given out for marijuana convictions over the last two years in great detail. The largest one I could find was given out to a fellow who was sentenced to four years, and he had testified, and confessed to the judge the growing of marijuana in a number of warehouses over a 10-year period. Through the use of his own private planes he had been exporting it to the U.S. He had made many millions of dollars. As a matter of fact, he even owned a 50 per cent interest in the Golden, B.C. courthouse and the jail at which he was being tried and held, and four years was the biggest sentence I could come across for this type of thing.
Why is there sentencing disparity such as that? If you look at the law it says that regional sentencing disparity should be to address any regional problems. You know if there are more break and enters in one area than another, then perhaps they need to toughen up the sentences. However, I would suggest that British Columbia has probably 50 times as many grow operations and shipments to the U.S. as we have here, and they are dealing with it quite well. Actually, it is quite a boom to their economy. Out here, we have a very limited amount. I guess it could be said that because of these draconian sentences perhaps that is why we do. Perhaps it all works; I do not know. Nevertheless, whichever way it is going, it is much more severe in the East than it is out West.
Senator Banks: This is just personal curiosity in relation to your own situation. Have you gone to any extraordinary appeal measures with respect to what you say is your forthcoming incarceration?
Mr. Patriquen: I would certainly like to, sir, but as I have testified, we cannot even afford an attorney to defend us at the preliminary inquiry to try and save our home. Now I am sure I could lay a constitutional challenge to the sentencing laws that I not be sent to prison to suffer without my medication, but a challenge like that would involve people from Health Canada, from Ottawa, travelling to Halifax, a number of experts. That is all expensive. Plus an attorney. That would cost approximately $25,000 to $30,000 to pose that question to the court. I could certainly not get up and make that argument myself. There is a great depth of case law that has to be presented, plus expert testimony.
Senator Banks: I only have to ask you about your wife. Are you Mrs. Patriquen?
Mrs. Melanie Patriquen: Yes, I am indeed, senator.
Senator Banks: Did the termination of your employment follow your being charged with being in possession of the proceeds of crime?
Mrs. Patriquen: No, it did not.
Mr. Patriquen: If I could interject. I had the opportunity 10 days ago to cross-examine the RCMP lead investigator who sent the letter to Melanie's employer in that regard. I questioned him on why he put so much detail in the letter as to the marijuana conviction.
The Chairman: One thing, sir. Are you in the process of a trial in this matter?
Mr. Patriquen: A preliminary inquiry.
The Chairman: I must warn you, of course, that everything being said here today is privileged and you are immune from prosecution, civil and criminal. However, judges do not like cases that are before them to be discussed outside of their courtroom.
Mr. Patriquen: Very well. I will say no more.
The Chairman: It would be advisable not to discuss it.
Mr. Patriquen: Thank you, sir.
Senator Banks: I did not know that the trial was forthcoming.
The only other question I have is a niggling one. In a couple of instances in the past, a couple of the things that you did with respect to marijuana, like selling it, for example, you must have known at the time were wrong or at least you must have known at the time were illegal?
Mr. Patriquen: Yes, sir. I think there is a strong distinction to be made between wrong and illegal.
Senator Banks: But you knew that a couple of them were illegal. You also would have been aware of a distinction between, in the legal sense, having possession of some, on the one hand, and selling some, on the other.
Mr. Patriquen: Yes, sir. Legally, I acknowledge that what I did was wrong. Morally, I did nothing wrong.
Senator Banks: I am going to read your story again. I am sorry that I missed part of it, but I am sure it is all here. I wish you good luck.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your testimony. If there is more information that you want to file with the committee, we can leave you the card and the e-mail address of the clerk, and you can send it to us.
The committee adjourned.