Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs
Issue 22 - Evidence - Morning sitting
OTTAWA, Monday, June 10, 2002
The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs met today at 8:00 a.m. to review Canadian drug control laws and policies.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) is in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I declare this final meeting of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs open. On this important day, we will receive representatives of the various departments and agencies responsible for implementing the Canadian drug policy. First, we will have, from the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Paul Kennedy, Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Security Branch. On the same panel, we will have, from the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Brian Grant, Director, Addictions Research Centre, and Mr. Toller, Deputy Commissioner, Prairie Region. Also joining this panel, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. William Lenton, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Services, and Mr. Chuck Walker, Inspector, Officer in Charge, Operational Systems Policy Section, National Contract Policing Branch.
As we have a full day ahead of us, we will try as much as possible to stick to our schedule. We have one hour this morning. Consequently, we will ask you to proceed with fairly brief preliminary remarks to enable my colleagues, whom I hasten to introduce to you, to ask the most appropriate questions possible.
On my extreme right, from the Province of Alberta, Senator Tommy Banks — I presume most of you know him — my colleague from the Province of Quebec, Senator Shirley Maheu, and, on my left, from Prince Edward Island, Senator Eileen Rossiter.
[English]
Mr. Kennedy, please proceed.
Mr. Paul E. Kennedy, Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Security Branch, Department of the Solicitor General: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to speak on the issue of substance abuse, which is a serious concern for us. We are pleased to have the opportunity to inform you of our activities and to answer your questions.
Chief Superintendent Souccar is responsible, among other things, for federal drug enforcement and the substance abuse program delivered by the RCMP through its drug awareness service. With him is Inspector Chuck Walker, who is involved at each stage of the RCMP service delivery. Mr. Walker wears another hat, in that he works with the contract policing services of the force, delivering services under contract to the provinces, territories and municipalities. We thought it would be useful to have Inspector Walker here today because the committee indicated an interest in data collection as it relates to determining the cost of enforcement of drug laws in Canada.
I am also pleased to be accompanied by two colleagues from Correctional Services Canada: Mr. Ross Toller, Deputy Commissioner, Prairie Region, who will provide us with some context on substance abuse in prisons and answer your questions in that regard; and Mr. Brian Grant, Director of the Addictions Research Centre, Prince Edward Island. The centre is the focal point for all drug and alcohol research conducted by Correctional Service Canada as it works to reduce the negative effects of addiction.
The reality of the portfolio of the Solicitor General, and the activities of the department, the RCMP and Correctional Services Canada, is that it provides a broad range of services in relation to substance abuse. We thought it would be useful to present with a larger delegation of witnesses to show you the full range.
With your agreement, I will outline briefly how we could proceed. I should like to make a short presentation addressing some highlights of the activities currently underway within the portfolio: our activities in response to what we call ``external influences,'' such as the December Auditor General's report; the questions you raised, Mr. Chairman, in your letter to the Solicitor General about the cost to police of enforcing drug laws; the extent of and policies regarding drug use in prisons; substance abuse treatment programs in prisons; and statistics on possession offences. Following my remarks, Mr. Grant will present his comments.
Although the common view of the Solicitor General's portfolio is that it deals exclusively with the supply side of the federal drug strategy, the fact is that its departments and agencies support the government's drug strategy through activities across the spectrum of services in the areas of prevention, harm reduction, treatment, enforcement and reintegration. I will not provide in-depth detail on these activities, but the information is available in a booklet that I brought today, and which has been made available to you. I should like to table it on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada. The publication provides a bird's eye view of the portfolio in respect of prevention, enforcement, harm reduction, treatment and reintegration.
While we know that these pillars are extremely important in advancing our efforts to counter substance abuse, they will not be successful without another layer of effort. We must have adequate research and evaluation, and we must work together across jurisdictions to address the problem. The booklet describes what the portfolio is doing about this.
Achieving progress in combating substance abuse remains a difficult challenge. We all recognize that much work must be done. In the last year, there have been several external events that have highlighted this point and influenced the work of this department. One of the most significant was the Auditor General's December 2001 report, which concluded, in part, that the government needs to enhance data on the nature and scope of the drug problem, develop performance indicators and evaluation information, and review the mechanisms for coordination within the federal government and with other jurisdictions. Your committee and the House Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs have served to focus this portfolio's attention on those issues.
In response to these influences, the department has taken action to enhance our efforts to counter substance abuse. This February, a portfolio working group was established to bring together the various directorates within the Department of the Solicitor General, the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to start building an integrated substance abuse strategy. The first phase of this work was to embark on a taking-stock exercise that resulted in the booklet to which I referred.
The next phase of the working group's action will be to address the effectiveness of individual programs with a view to establishing a substance abuse strategy. We will continue to provide the service coverage as per usual, from prevention through to reintegration. Our goal is to integrate the separate but parallel tracks that now exist within the portfolio. To this end, we have considered the various possible elements of our strategy. We have considered agency specific and common portfolio objectives, goals and performance indicators. We have also considered a common policy framework that highlights linkages to the department's priorities. For instance, the drug strategy is linked on the supply side to our national agenda on organized crime. We know that drug trafficking remains the principal source of income for organized crime groups that are involved in the upper echelon of the trade. We must, therefore, target our efforts, just as the RCMP focuses on these groups, so that we can create an environment in which prevention and treatment efforts can succeed. It is in this way that enforcement is complementary to prevention and treatment.
Equally important is the need to link our drug strategy with our priorities on the demand side, such as our portfolio crime prevention strategy. There are strong crossovers between substance abuse and the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, which the Solicitor General co-chairs with the Minister of Justice. Since its launch in 1998, the national strategy has funded over 150 substance-abuse-related projects in communities across the country. In addition to developing common portfolio objectives, we have also acknowledged that research capacity is key. We know, for instance, that effective prevention is research led and that there is a gap in research on the policing side.
We recognize that the police are on the frontlines dealing with substance abuse on a daily basis, and that their experience is an untapped resource. Furthermore, as we work toward developing a new national strategy, we want to ensure that our vision is evidence-based, not simply a collection of ad hoc measures. We also wish to encourage jurisdictional integration with the provinces, territories and municipalities.
Now that honourable senators have a backdrop to where we are and where we should like to go, let me turn to specific questions you raised, Senator Nolin, in your letter to the Solicitor General, dealing with the cost to police of enforcing drug laws, the extent of and policies regarding drugs in prison, and the substance abuse treatment program in prisons.
On the first topic, the cost of enforcement, I should like to begin by saying that the RCMP federal drug enforcement program gathers detailed expenditure data on the cost of program activities. Using this data, the Auditor General estimated that in 1999-2000, the RCMP spent $164 million on supply reduction efforts. This amount included costs directly related to drug enforcement as well as in related areas such as proceeds of crime and customs and excise.
As the Auditor General pointed out, this amount only applies to the RCMP federal services, not policing services rendered by the RCMP under contract to a province or municipality. In the case of contract policing, enforcement of drug laws is rendered in conjunction with a number of other services as, typically, the officers under contract are performing uniform duty, that is, general policing duties in communities. It is therefore difficult to determine what portion of their time is spent doing which activity. This difficulty is enhanced when the drug offence is incidental to another crime, which is often the case.
One must consider that a large portion of the cost of any police service is the pay and benefits extended to its members. In order to accurately determine the cost of drug enforcement in contract policing, the amount of time devoted to the effort must be measured.
While this is done for members of the RCMP employed in the federal services, the present system applied to contract policing is incapable of collecting this information. An effort is being made to develop a new system that could possibly capture this information. However, given the breadth of day-to-day contract policing duties, it is a clear challenge to separate out, in a meaningful way, drug-related activity.
Inspector Walker has brought with him a chart explaining how the RCMP, both the federal services and the contract-policing component, collect their data and why the federal service is able to place a value on drug investigations while the contract policing side cannot. He can distribute that and walk you through it later on, if you wish him to do so.
I should like to speak now to the cost borne by provincial and municipal police forces. We have recently begun a process to determine what information exists on enforcement costs and where the gaps lie. Last month, at the most recent meeting of the National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime, which I chair, our department distributed a questionnaire to collect existing information on the cost of enforcement in the provinces and territories. The questionnaire has since been distributed to police forces across the country through the Canadian Association of Police Boards. We are very interested in analyzing the results once we have received them.
The chairman's second question was about the use of drugs in prisons and related policies. Nearly 70 per cent of federal offenders have problems with alcohol and/or drugs. More than half used drugs or alcohol when they committed their current offence. Approximately 20 per cent of incarcerated offenders have been convicted of drug-related offences. With the prison population so highly engaged in the drug culture, keeping drugs out of prisons is a significant challenge.
The correctional service uses a number of enforcement measures to address the supply of drugs in federal institutions. It conducts searches, monitors areas where the potential for smuggling drugs into an institution is high, and works with police to share intelligence about drug issues.
In 2001, the correctional service introduced ion scanners into every institution to help detect the introduction of drugs. By September 2003, they expect to have a drug detection dog in every institution. Urinalysis is used to detect and deter substance abuse by offenders. The results from the random urinalysis program give some indication of which drugs are getting in and who uses them. In 2000-01, the national results from the random urinalysis sample program found that 12 per cent of the samples tested positive for at least one intoxicant.
Your third question, Mr. Chairman, was about the treatment program available in prison. Treatment programs are available for all offenders. A range of programs is available to help offenders break the cycle of addiction and safely reintegrate back into the community. As well, offenders have access to support through Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. For inmates who wish to remain free of alcohol and drugs, Correctional Service Canada has established intensive support units in all maximum, minimum and medium male institutions. These units provide a more structured environment, including added searching and drug testing to reinforce the offenders' efforts to change substance abuse behaviour. Similar units are planned for all women's facilities in 2002-03.
The 1999 study found that offenders who participated in a substance abuse program before their release into the community showed 13 per cent fewer readmissions, 29 per cent fewer new convictions and 53 per cent fewer violent offences in the year following release, compared to a similar group of offenders who did not complete the program.
Before I conclude, I have a few words to say about drug offence statistics. I am certain that you have heard a great deal about offence rates. If I may, I would like to offer a word of caution about interpreting the statistics in the absence of contextual information. For instance, some have compared the rate of possession offences with trafficking offences and concluded that the police are targeting individual drug users.
There are several reasons to believe that this may not be the case. The statistics should be understood in the context in which they are gathered. Statistics may indicate a high rate of possession and other offences for several reasons. There is the phenomenon of plea-bargaining, where more serious charges, including trafficking, cultivation and possession with a purpose, are dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to possession. That may have skewed the statistics. In these cases, possession is always a lesser and included offence. Demographics, like the baby boom and echo effect, may create an increase in drug use and, therefore, drug offences. I find generally that for minor criminal activity, many offenders are between the ages of 15 and 24. Thus, you might find little blips that reflect the baby boomers and the echo phenomenon.
The way Statistics Canada gathers information is also important. I am advised that an offence of trafficking, if it occurs over a period of time, is recorded as one offence. It is called the ``continuing offence rule.'' Possession offences, on the other hand, are not recorded in this way. In addition, Statistics Canada uniform crime reporting service, version one, which the RCMP currently uses to report offence data, requires that only the most serious criminal and traffic- related offences related to one incident are reported. Therefore, in the case of a break and enter, where a police officer also finds marijuana on the accused, the possession charge will be recorded by Stats Can instead of the break and enter. Case studies indicate that the vast majority of cannabis possession charges are incidental to other offences such as break and enters. This is based on an RCMP drug crimes case study data analysis for the region of Ottawa-Carleton in the period 1996-98.
A series of innovative and balanced legislative and policy instruments, ranging from drug treatment courts to conditional sentences, police cautioning schemes and alternate diversion programs, has been introduced to divert individual drug users from deeper involvement in the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, I note that honourable senators heard from Chief Superintendent Bob Lesser of the RCMP back in October, and more recently he appeared with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police or CACP. However, I do not believe you have actually heard about the correctional context. That is why we have with us today Deputy Commissioner Toller, who has previously appeared before the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. He can respond to any questions you have. Mr. Grant would like to make some comments.
Mr. Brian Grant, Director, Addictions Research Centre, Correctional Service Canada: Honourable senators, the Addictions Research Centre of Correctional Service Canada was announced in November of 1999 by the Solicitor General, the Hon. Lawrence MacAulay. A new centre was opened in Montague, Prince Edward Island, in May 2001. The role of the centre is to conduct applied research to assist the service in understanding issues surrounding substance abuse and to develop programs that assist offenders in breaking their drug dependency. We have a unique opportunity to work with offenders who are incarcerated as well as those in the community. In this way, we can contribute to the safety of all Canadians.
The centre is unique in the world. It is the only research centre established by a correctional organization to specifically address the challenges of addictions. In addition, with a staff of 20, it is one of the larger addiction research centres in Canada. The centre was established because we recognize that, through research and program development, we could ensure that offenders receive the most effective and efficient programming available. However, the knowledge we generate has benefits that go beyond corrections and will have application to all Canadians.
At the centre, we focus on four areas: first, program development that is currently focused on culturally sensitive programs for women and Aboriginal offenders; second, program research in areas like community intervention, methadone maintenance, intensive support units and fetal alcohol syndrome. The third area of focus is assessment and monitoring, which allows us to measure trends over time to evaluate the success of our interventions. The final and most important area is knowledge dissemination. We do this through reports, meetings, and partnerships with government departments, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, universities and colleges, and community agencies working with addictions issues.
We recently brought together 160 researchers, corrections personnel and people from community addictions organizations across Canada and around the world for an international experts' forum. The purpose of the forum was to develop a set of priorities for research and development. The forum also encouraged collaboration across jurisdictions, as all face similar problems with substance abuse within their prison systems.
Research is a key component of an effective drug strategy, and innovative program development puts that research into effect. The Addictions Research Centre brings these two factors together. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman: We are in the final stages of writing our report and, of course, there are some missing numbers. I will take up your invitation and will ask our two researchers to be in touch with you or your colleagues to finalize those numbers. We are trying to ensure that we understand why, at first sight, the numbers tend to be contradictory.
Senator Banks: My first question is for Mr. Grant. Are there any people presently in the corrections system who hold ministerial permits to use cannabis for medicinal purposes?
Mr. Grant: My understanding is no, not at this time.
Senator Banks: Do you know what the percentage is, Mr. Kennedy, of cannabis possession that you described as ``incidental''? You said that you know approximately how many people would, incidentally to the crime of break and enter, for example, and other crimes, be also charged with possession. Do we have a percentage in that case?
Mr. Kennedy: I can make some general comments and I will then turn it over to Mr. Walker.
Senator Banks: While you are on general comments, perhaps you could explain how Statistics Canada would record such an instance.
Mr. Kennedy: I will take the first part. Then I will turn the question over to the inspector, because he deals with how they gather data to satisfy Statistics Canada's needs.
There is a particular phenomenon that occurs when you are arrested for an offence, as you may be committing some minor criminal matter. You will be stopped, you will be arrested and there will be a search of your person, looking for weapons or anything else. If drugs are found on you at that stage, then you will be charged. In other words, the primary offence was not necessarily a drug offence; it was something else, but the search results in drugs being found. The same thing could happen if you are driving a motor vehicle and something happens that requires you to be arrested and searched, then drugs may be found incidental to whatever else may have occurred.
Dealing with drug offences, the police may go in because there is a hydroponics cultivation operation going on. They may look at it and, depending on the quantity of drugs found there, not charge people for the hydroponics operation but with possession. It may be that they did not catch them with enough to merit laying a more serious charge. As part of that, the individuals would be arrested and searched. If there is marijuana found on them — because it is not unusual that drug traffickers or cultivators will have marijuana for their own personal use — those instances will potentially show up as statistics for possession in terms of convictions. In fact, it was not someone walking down the street or is in his or her home with a joint of marijuana. It is actually incidental.
Likewise, I have seen some statistics on jail time for possession of marijuana. I have been working in this area for about 28 years, and in the early 1970s I spent eight years as a federal prosecutor for drug offences. At that time, the government had introduced absolute and conditional discharges as one way of alleviating the phenomenon of first- time offenders caught with marijuana acquiring criminal records. As you know, with discharges, there is a finding of guilt but no conviction, and a period of probation instead.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, you had to work hard to get jail time for possession of marijuana. There usually had to be multiple offences, and then someone would say, ``You have had all the breaks you are going to get,'' or possession was coupled with some other kind of criminal activity. It did not really make sense not to give custodial time on the marijuana charges — that is an example. It would be custodial time, tending to run concurrently with whatever other time was given. The same thing happened with other offences. Unless you have been a practitioner in the area, when you look at the statistics in isolation, it can look unusual. However, if you put it in context, you know how it actually works.
That is why you need to use caution in how you look at the data. I know people do their best, but the data can look unusual unless you are work in the area.
Senator Banks: We have been paying attention to those numbers, and the chairman referred to some that he would like to see beefed up. We certainly understand that the police are not running around trying to bust people for having a joint of marijuana. You discussed how those statistics might be skewed because of the way Statistics Canada reports them.
Mr. Kennedy: I will turn that over to Inspector Walker.
Inspector Chuck Walker, Officer in Charge, Operational Systems Policy Section, National Contract Policing Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The system that we currently use to capture statistical data feeds a crime reporting survey called UCR 1. That is the first crime reporting survey that the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics developed many years ago. There have since been new iterations of the survey involving more police consultation than the survey we currently use.
The rules of that survey determine what component of our statistical workloads we send to Statistics Canada and what components are captured for our own internal purposes.
The ``most serious offence'' rule was referred to earlier. That occurs quite frequently, especially in the contract policing business. We get a call for service for a break and enter, for example. Incidental to that investigation, a charge is laid for marijuana possession.
The seriousness hierarchy determines which one of those offences we report to Statistics Canada. In the case of a B and E versus practically any drug-related offence, not just possession, the break and enter is the data that is sent, according to the most serious offence rule.
Senator Banks: Likely, the prison population would have a larger percentage of people who were charged with possession as well as other offences than show up in the statistics.
Mr. Walker: Without question.
The Chairman: Simple possession is not the only offence, with B and E being the most common example. That being a more serious offence than simple possession, the record will show B and E, not possession.
Mr. Walker: That is correct.
The Chairman: If I follow Mr. Kennedy, simple possession is registered in the statistics, and also another crime. There may be two crimes recorded for one incident.
Mr. Walker: I can speak for the RCMP because we use UCR 1, which is the survey with the most serious offence rule. From any given incident, we report only the most serious criminal and traffic offence.
In the newer surveys being used by some police services, for example, the UCR 2.1 survey, which is the current instrument that Statistics Canada is using, the rule is the four most serious offences in the same incident are recorded.
The Chairman: In your testimony, Mr. Kennedy, you were referring to that new way of registering the crimes.
Mr. Kennedy: With reference to the older one, you must bear in mind what might happen. In May 1997, the government passed the CDSA, the Controlled Drug and Substance Act. Prior to that time, possession of marijuana was a hybrid offence deemed indictable with a punishment maximum of seven years. Since that date, it is strictly summary conviction for quantities of less than 1 gram of marijuana. When you look at the data, there is a bit of a high water mark in 1997. Common assault or theft might incur less of a penalty than the seven years for possession of marijuana.
The Chairman: I will ask Mr. Lafreniere to be in touch with you to look at your numbers. We want to understand them. If our number of 30,000 a year is not correct, we will adjust it. We do not want to show something that is not the reality. If there is a number, we want to know it.
Senator Banks: Is the newer data collection regime now in place? Has the older one been eliminated? Are we at, or coming to, a point at which everyone will agree on the numbers?
Mr. Walker: We will get there. The systems that the RCMP currently uses are in the process of being replaced. There are some technological challenges in moving to the new survey. Our statistical collection application is called OSR, and it is just not capable of feeding UCR data to the new survey.
We are moving to a new suite of occurrence record management systems very shortly. In fact, the request for proposals has been tendered. Bids will be coming in shortly. There will be a short evaluation process, and then we will get on with developing our replacement technology and rolling it out.
The new system will be UCR 2.1 compliant, which means we will be collecting data and sending it according to the rules that are appropriate for that survey — the four most serious offences for any given incident. When that occurs, it will mean that most of the major police forces in Canada will be counting apples in the same way.
Senator Banks: Do you have a target date in mind?
Mr. Walker: The new application is called PROS, the Police Reporting and Occurrence System. A contract will be awarded this summer, according to our current timelines. We will receive the first release one year after that. A year after that release, it will be rolled out to 80 per cent of the user population in the RCMP.
Senator Banks: You said, Mr. Kennedy, that among the people in the correctional system whose crimes were related to substance abuse, you found that 20 per cent were drug-related. Do I presume that 80 per cent would be liquor- related?
Mr. Ross Toller, Deputy Commissioner, Prairie Region, Department of the Solicitor General: We do not have the statistics that break down the 20 per cent of our population with us, but we can get those for you.
Senator Banks: Not 20 per cent of the population, but 20 per cent of people found to have committed a crime in which there was incidental substance abuse.
Mr. Toller: Twenty per cent of our population is doing time for a Criminal Code offence for drugs. I would add that in as high as 70 per cent of our population, there are reports of problems with substance abuse. Therefore, the number is much greater than the 20 per cent who have criminal charges directly related to drugs.
Senator Banks: Those are two separate things. You are talking about the population at large, and Mr. Kennedy was talking about cases where there was direct substance abuse connected to the crime, although incidentally.
Mr. Kennedy: I stated that nearly 70 per cent of federal offenders have problems with alcohol and/or drugs. More than half of those used drugs or alcohol when they committed their current offence.
There could be a domestic violence situation where the person is impaired, or a significant assault or more serious form of violence. The individual is arrested and incarcerated. Alcohol obviously played a significant role in that. Aside from that, 20 per cent of the prison population have been convicted of drug-related offences.
If you are working on prevention, clearly there is a correlation between alcohol and drug abuse and anti-social behaviour that lands you in prison. In federal prisons, particularly since the introduction of conditional sentences, both alcohol and drugs are significant factors in serious offences.
I am sure Health Canada has put statistics before you. Alcohol is the most widely abused drug.
Senator Maheu: Mr. Kennedy spoke about his long history in the system. He spoke about the challenge of drugs in prison, the ion scanners and how every penitentiary would have a drug-detecting dog before too long.
I have some 20 years' experience with drugs in prison. There is an expression in French, and I am being facetious, ``Plus ça va, plus c'est pareil.'' What has changed in 20 years? From what you and Mr. Grant have said, I cannot see that much has changed in our penitentiaries in 20 years. What is going on?
Mr. Kennedy: I go back 28 years in this particular area. I sit on international fora as well. I am head of the Canadian delegation to the hemispheric commission dealing with drug abuse. Dr. Beale has also appeared before you.
We have to put this in context, as we do any form of anti-social behaviour. We have heard the phrase, ``the war on drugs,'' as if we will somehow eliminate them. We are dealing with the human condition, with anti-social behaviour, whether it is stealing, prostitution or something as simple as lying. I understand someone produced a study that says even the best of us lies 200 times a day — those are little social lies that get us by — but we have not given up on truth. We have traffic laws. However, I suspect many people speed. They probably speed less than they would otherwise because of those laws. We are trying to control a human behaviour so that it does not do significant damage to society.
There are countries that have been less successful than Canada in controlling the drug problem. More than that, we know the criminality that goes with it — corruption, organized crime, violence and so on.
I want to put my objective in context. It is not to eliminate lying, stealing or drug addiction. In my generation, we had a saying about methamphetamines, ``Speed kills.'' There was serious intravenous use. It went away for a while and has returned with another generation. Each generation must re-learn certain lessons. Cocaine was a massive problem in the late 1890s and 1900s. It went away and now has returned. Our society struggles with these phenomena. The French word ``lute'' implies more of a struggle than a war. Society has tried to contain these problems before they get out of hand.
That is a philosophy we should bear in mind in terms of the rhetoric that has coloured this issue over the years, that the war on drugs will somehow eliminate it. I think it will be eliminated when we are all dead. Addiction is a phenomenon of the human condition. This is just one substance that leads to addiction.
Mr. Toller: I have been in the business for 25 years. What has not changed is the desire of our population to engage in drug activity. As Mr. Kennedy pointed out, certainly with a population as high as 70 per cent that has an interest in engaging in this type of activity, motivation levels do not dissipate the day they enter a federal institution, or in other types of intervention.
We have improved dramatically in a number of areas over the past year. We have utilized ion scanners. We continue to look at new technologies to reduce supply activities. A drug dog in every institution gives us immediate accessibility. They are proving to be a success. In recent years, we have seen progress in the urinalysis program, which did not exist a couple of decades ago. Our intelligence network, communications and sharing of information with police and other agencies has improved dramatically over the past years.
We have made significant strides in our programming. We will encourage and support inmates in kicking their habit with a sophisticated array of programs. We do assessments at the early stages to determine the levels of intervention that may be necessary. With alcohol, for example, social drinking might have little effect on criminal behaviour, but hardened drinking requires a more intensive response.
Our programs are accredited. We have national panels and a research component behind our programs. We are developing an array of research projects to see what works. We are seeing some significant results, most of which have a cognitive-based element in terms of rethinking the interest in engaging in that type of anti-social behaviour.
We have also developed intensive support units within our facilities that you would not have seen a few decades ago. This includes not only more enhanced searching as well as urinalysis, but also strengthening their own desire and motivation to work on the issue.
I do believe that we continue to make progress. What has not changed, as you pointed out, is this interest of some of the population in engaging in that behaviour.
Senator Maheu: Does Correctional Service Canada supply the necessary dollars to assist the inmates in overcoming their problems?
Mr. Toller: There has recently been a significant shift of dollars into programming infrastructure support, as we continue to develop and refine our programs and look at the research base. We will be looking to invest more dollars in the areas showing results. As we begin to formulate interventions that are proving to be working, you will see more activity there to help reduce criminal behaviour.
The Chairman: I have a few questions. I wish to thank the CCRA for the opportunity to see the dogs in action in Windsor. Are they the type of dogs you are referring to?
Mr. Toller: Yes, they are. In fact, they are considered passive response dogs.
The Chairman: That is my follow-up question, whether they are the passive or active dogs. We have seen the active dogs and I do not want my body searched by one.
Mr. Toller: They are active when they find drugs. It is a similar approach.
The Chairman: Are you familiar with the suspect file the CCRA keeps?
We had a private meeting with them. I will ask Mr. Lafreniére, when he is in touch with you, to find out whether that information stays within Canada, what kind of information is shared with our neighbours and how we protect the Charter rights of Canadians. I understand why CCRA is keeping a record of the suspects, but that and CPIC are two different entities.
Mr. Kennedy, could you confirm that the quality of our knowledge of drug use in Canada, or around the world, is at best contradictory? What should we do to develop sound, unbiased knowledge? Should we start with that, or should we start by discussing a new drug strategy?
Mr. Kennedy: No, you are on the right track. The last study that Health Canada did of drug use was back in 1992, 1994. There have been some studies of the user populations. Manitoba and Ontario have done some school studies.
The evidence worldwide is uneven and sporadic, to say the least. It gives us general indications, but much more needs to be done. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is doing some good work. Through both the United Nations and in this hemisphere, we are trying to introduce the MEM, Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism, to find out what is going on in 34 countries in order to get baseline data for comparative purposes. The old question is: ``Are you making any impact or progress?'' It is hard to measure that if you cannot find a valid statistical base to work from in which everyone has faith. We are not there yet.
The Chairman: Observation of the prevalence is one thing and research is another. I do not want to get into those specific tools, but I am sure you know exactly what I mean. Some 4,000 pieces of research have been undertaken over the last four years, and the protocols were not exactly the kind on which we want to base our Canadian drug policy. Sometimes they were buying the conclusion before finding the result. Evidence-based and unbiased, neutral, objective research is fine. I believe we are looking toward the same goal.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, definitely.
The Chairman: It must be properly funded, too.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, it must be. This is a very serious problem worldwide. We lose generations of people to drug addiction. One of the greatest concerns is the youth population, because some of the data indicates that people are using drugs at an earlier age. Those are your formative years, in terms of your values, socializing skills and knowledge base. It is difficult to recapture that when you get older. There are new designer drugs such as Ecstasy, and we wonder about the effects on a person who uses them.
When a hole is plugged in one area, another opens somewhere else. In many ways, those will be more challenging for us because you do not need crop fields, whether it is heroin, cocaine or marijuana. In advanced industrial societies like Europe, Canada and the United States, a good chemist can manufacture the stuff for great profit. What is the impact on these people? It is worrisome.
We need good research on drug trends so interventions can be developed. Education and prevention are the keys. We have a leaky boat and we are trying to fill the hole and bail at the same time. While you were filling the hole, someone else has drilled a new one. As we were wrestling with cocaine, someone came up with crack. Someone came up with methamphetamines; people did not like using needles so they came up with Ice so a person could smoke the stuff. People did not like heroin, so they put it in a form that can be smoked.
The Chairman: It is very market oriented.
Mr. Kennedy: Exactly.
The other issue is the proper data. We do ourselves a disservice sometimes in estimating the size of the problem. There is a phenomenon based upon a formula: Assume we only seize 10 per cent of the drug. That does not seem to be scientifically based, because if I seize a tonne of cocaine I assume there must be 10 tonnes. If I seize 10 tonnes then the assumption is there must be 100 tonnes. That never appeared logical to me, because then if I seize nothing, I have cured the problem.
We need proper data on pharmacological properties, and we need to know the impact on people's health and the size of the problem. I agree that we must do a fuller range of research.
The Chairman: I have another problem with terminology. In 1964, the World Health Organization recommended we not use the French word, ``toxicomanie,'' for many reasons that were based on the real meaning of the term. This word is used in the French version, I understand, and ``substance abuse'' is mentioned as being equivalent to ``toxicomanie,'' which is not the case. By ``substance abuse'' do you mean substance dependence? Are those two different problems? If we can share the same lexicon, we will have solved 25 per cent of the problem.
You referred to a study concerning the research on convictions. Was that for Ottawa police?
Mr. Kennedy: I believe that was the Ottawa study.
The Chairman: In the research that you are conducting at the addiction research centre, are you coordinating with the CMHA in Toronto and using their findings?
Mr. Grant: We have had meetings with them. Part of our research program is to ensure we build those connections in the community and we will be working together. In fact, they were heavily represented at our recent international forum. There are good opportunities there.
The Chairman: I ask that question because for them, abstinence is not a rule.
Mr. Grant: That is right. In our programming, we do not begin by demanding that people accept an abstinence system of drug treatment. They are not allowed to use drugs while they are in prison. However, you put up a wall when you tell people that in order to enter a program, they have to give up all use of whatever the substance is.
On the other hand, if you tell them that the program is designed to teach them to control their substance abuse problem, which is a more positive point of view, people who are severely dependent often recognize when they get to the end of the treatment program that they cannot continue to use, and that becomes their choice. We are much better off if they make that choice through the program rather than trying to force them to abstain.
The Chairman: Therefore, you are not enforcing that rule on day one of their enrolment in the program; is that correct?
Mr. Grant: The first day they walk in, we do not tell them that they must stop.
The Chairman: The person is in prison and drugs are not allowed.
Mr. Grant: Drugs are not allowed in prison, but when people get out of the institution they may choose to go back to using, or they may not. That is our hope at the end of the program. However, abstinence may be the only solution for severely addicted people. For other people who are, for example, abusing alcohol, reducing the quantity to a safe level may be an acceptable option. When people give up the substances they are using, they give up their support structures. We need to give people something to replace that, so that eventually they will make the right decision.
The Chairman: I have one final question about urinalysis. Is it true that prisoners will use other drugs since cannabis can be traced in their urine? Have you noticed that they switch to something else?
Mr. Grant: We have not found that. I was going over this information the other day, and one of the most interesting statistics shows that the use of marijuana has been on the rise. Urinalysis data shows that the use of marijuana has been increasing in the Pacific region, which also happens to have the biggest problem with heroin. If people were switching to heroin in order to avoid detection, we would not be seeing an increase in the use of marijuana. Use of marijuana has remained relatively constant over the years and other drug use has not increased. We find no evidence of that.
The Chairman: Do you have reliable statistics on the use of cannabis in the Canadian prison system?
Mr. Grant: Based on two sources. Our urinalysis data is probably the most objective measure. We know how many people have used marijuana. We also know the figures for other drugs.
There is self-reporting of cannabis use when people enter our institutions. We know that 80 per cent of our offenders used cannabis when they were in the community. Some 50 per cent of them are regular cannabis users. We know that from the assessment we do when they arrive.
Senator Banks: On that subject, is urinalysis universal in the prison population? Is that a Charter problem?
Mr. Toller: It is a universal program. In fact, we have a random program in which 5 per cent of the population is tested monthly at every site. The names are generated at random. Part of this program depends on cause. Thus, in cases where there is just cause to believe that there may be substance abuse, we have a process we go through. The random process is more defined. It is cleared from the legal angle and works quite successfully.
Senator Banks: Would for-cause urinalysis be done in addition to the random?
Mr. Toller: Absolutely. This could be because of observed behaviours or activities.
Senator Banks: Are those statistics folded into each other?
Mr. Toller: We keep separate ones for both.
Senator Banks: There was a recent kerfuffle about smoking in prison. Where are we with that? I have not read any news about it.
Mr. Toller: Are you referring to the smoking of regular cigarettes?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Mr. Toller: We continue to have areas where smoking permitted, but we have many smoke-free units. Similar to some of the situations in the general community, people must smoke outside the building. We have non-smoking accommodation areas.
The Chairman: Thank you for accepting our invitation. Give your minister our regards. We look forward to his reaction to our report. I am sure you will find it helpful in your future work.
[Translation]
We now have Mr. Michols, representing a department that is very important to our proceedings.
[English]
Thank you for accepting our invitations and appearing. We have with us today Mr. Michols, Ms Lynch, Ms Goulet and Ms Airth.
Mr. Dann Michols, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us here today. We are responding to your letter, which had a range of questions in it. I should like to ask Ms Lynch to present a small deck that we have put together that outlines the drug strategy and answers some of the questions you have raised.
I have asked Ms Goulet, the Director General for the Tobacco Control Programme, which is also within my branch, to be here. There are some common concerns about the health impact of smoked marijuana and tobacco. It may be useful for you to have an opportunity to delve into those issues as your committee does its work.
I will ask Ms Lynch to present the deck, of which you have copies. That will serve as an outline for what we do in Health Canada on this subject.
Ms Gillian Lynch, Director General, Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, Health Canada: Honourable senators, we wish to inform you today of Canada's drug strategy, Health Canada's role within the strategy, and our relationships with our partners.
Within this discussion, we will respond to the questions that were raised, Mr. Chairman, in your letter to Minister McLellan. We will speak to the coordinating mechanisms, your concerns regarding information and your questions regarding medical marijuana.
To position the discussion on drug abuse in Canada, I will speak to a few facts. Alcohol is still the most commonly used drug in Canada, and it is the main issue in St. John's and continues to be important in Winnipeg. It is a continuing factor in road accidents. Aboriginal youth have a two to six times higher risk for every alcohol-related problem than youth nationally. There are also emerging problems such as drug use and driving; that is, cannabis amongst youth and psychoactive medication used by seniors. The use of synthetic drugs appears to be a growing trend with the rave movement —
The Chairman: When you say, ``drug use and driving,'' are you referring to only drug use or to drug use mixed with alcohol?
Ms Lynch: It can be both.
The Chairman: Can you analyze the consequences of one, two, and one plus two?
Ms Lynch: I do not have that information, however, we can see if the difference between the two is available.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms Lynch: The rave movement has led to the use of MDA, Ecstasy and newer substances. Increasingly, we are seeing these synthetic drugs being used in combination. A related issue in Canada is the growing clandestine synthetic drug production. That is our concern.
In terms of health impacts, injection drug use, IDU, is a concern and a priority. Over one-third of the new HIV cases in 1999 were attributed to IDU use. It is also estimated that there are 4,500 new hepatitis C infections per year in Canada, of which 63 per cent are related to injection drug use. Interestingly, when we look at the numbers, about 100,000 Canadians inject drugs. That excludes those who are injecting steroids. If we include that number, it is about 125,000. About 11,000 people inject drugs in Montreal and about 12,000 in the Greater Vancouver region.
Most of the material that we have on costs is fairly old. However, there was a study done by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, CCSA, in 1996, based on 1992 costs. That study estimated that the total cost of alcohol and illicit drug use to the country was about $8.9 billion, or about 2.67 per cent of total GNP. Alcohol accounted for $7.5 billion and illicit drug use for $1.4 billion. In comparison, tobacco, which is not included in the total that I mentioned, accounted for about $9.5 billion.
The largest component of the cost for illicit drug use was lost productivity. Although mortality from illicit drug use is relatively infrequent compared to alcohol or tobacco, illicit drug deaths do tend to hit younger victims. It was concluded that most of the costs attributed to alcohol and illicit drug use are avoidable.
Canada's drug strategy promotes a balance between reducing the supply of drugs and the demand. Canada's drug strategy identifies the linkages and the number of health departments involved in this process, as well as the fact that substance abuse is primarily a health issue. Health Canada coordinates federal action and works with other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, industry, professionals and people right across the spectrum in Canada. The strategy is built on four pillars: prevention, enforcement and control, treatment and rehabilitation, and harm reduction. The long-term goal of the strategy is to reduce the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families and communities. There are some examples of federal activities in support of Canada's drug strategy.
Next, I will speak to your concern about how we manage the interrelationships of the various departments and agencies involved in the drug strategy. Health Canada plays the lead role; the Assistant Deputy Minister, Steering Committee on Substance Abuse, provides direction and priorities to the ongoing activities of the federal government; committees in each of the departments attempt to manage the file horizontally from within; and interdepartmental committees, including the interdepartmental working group on substance abuse, develop the work plan from the direction set by the assistant deputy minister.
On the federal-provincial side, there are a number of committees in which Health Canada is involved. Some are linked to the Advisory Committee on Population Health, ACPH, which gives us a direct line to the deputy ministers' conference and to the ministers. Other committees are at a working level, such as those that deal with the addiction treatment and rehabilitation program.
The CCSA is a non-governmental organization set up by an act of Parliament. The centre is involved with the federal government and other partners, especially in the area of information and knowledge management. In addition, there are international mechanisms. I will speak later to the three areas in which Health Canada works in that regard.
A growing area is the relationship with municipalities. More municipalities are looking at ways to address their drug problems, and one of the best examples of this is the Vancouver Agreement.
Next, we have the history of the drug strategy. During Phase I, from 1987 to 1992, $210 million, in addition to core funding within the departments, was provided, of which 77 per cent was for education, prevention and rehabilitation. Phase I saw the launch of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse at about $2 million per year, I believe. Phase I was complemented at that time by the National Impaired Driving Strategy.
Phase II, from 1992 to 1997, was launched with $270 million. It is estimated that, over the five-year period, about $104.4 million was actually provided. It was focused on high-risk populations and research. The idea was to ensure that we targeted some of that money to get the best value for the dollars spent. There was coordination across partners. At that time and in that phase, the National Impaired Driving Strategy was merged with the drug strategy.
I will speak now to our opinions on the outcomes of Canada's drug strategy. It is often difficult to measure, and to define, in a comprehensive, integrated strategy, ``cause and effect.'' There are so many things occurring that it is difficult to say what caused what, or that was directly related to that. However, we did see the use of alcohol decrease from 1989 to 1994 — drinking rates fell 5.6 percentage points in that period of time. Current drinkers were drinking less — 4.6 drinks per week compared to 3.9 drinks per week. At the same time, the drinking and driving issue seemed to be improving. We found that the numbers who drank two drinks one hour before driving fell from 22.8 per cent to 21 per cent. During that period, cannabis use was fairly stable — at 6.9 per cent in 1989 and 7.4 per cent in 1994.
Phase III of Canada's drug strategy covered 1997 to 2002 and was renewed in 1998. The Alcohol and Drug Treatment Rehabilitation Program was originally managed by HRDC and then transferred to Health Canada in about 1998 at about $16.5 million per year. I will speak to that in a moment. The initial amount was slightly less. Funding for enforcement activities remained at approximately 65 per cent of previous levels and the coordination leadership function of the CDS stayed with Health Canada.
What has happened since? Substance abuse has been addressed mainly through many departmental activities. Additional funds have been provided to meet certain legislative and international obligations. In the 1999 budget, about $13 million was provided for support to the Drug Analysis Service, hemp regulations and medical marijuana.
In 2000, the International Drug Strategy MC provided an amount of $6 million to Health Canada, Solicitor General Canada, the Department of Justice Canada and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, in support of our international obligations.
Realignment in Health Canada in July 2000 brought together legislative and regulatory activities with coordination and leadership functions of Canada's drug strategy.
The tobacco program was also placed within that same branch, thus providing us with a good opportunity to work together where appropriate.
In addition, in 2002-03, the funding to CCSA was raised by $1 million for each of the next three years to provide the agency with a total of $1.5 million for each of these years.
The next slide uses the same visual approach to describe Health Canada's role within the drug strategy.
Health Canada is the focal point for the strategy. Substance abuse is recognized as a health issue and is viewed within a harm reduction framework, achieving the balance between demand and supply reduction. Health Canada, in turn, plays across all four pillars, and most parts of the department operate within those four pillars as partners. Health Canada is active with many stakeholders and partners, and examples of activities across the department are included.
An important message that Health Canada supports has been conveyed at several fora, and it is that an essential feature of an effective drug strategy is reliable information and a knowledge base upon which sound decisions can be based.
In that regard, the decision was made to increase the CCSA funding in 2002. CCSA works in the area of information and knowledge management, and the intent was to allow the agency to develop better information and knowledge management strategies in support of policy development.
The next slide shows current expenditures on substance abuse. Within the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, the one for which I am responsible, we have $34 million, and this slide shows you how that is divided.
Of note is that the Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Program, the ADTR, provides $14 million in contribution agreements to provinces to support their treatment and rehabilitation programs.
The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch is spending about $70 million, and we will discuss a little later what that provides. This gives us a total of $104 million.
There are contributory programs. There is funding for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and FAS/FAE within the department to deal with issues related to injection drug use.
For instance, the HIV/AIDS program has surveillance systems measuring IDU and the FAS/FAE is developing a new strategy for prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome.
The next slide speaks to our specific activities in relation to substance abuse. We are the competent national authority in relation to the UN international conventions. We do manage the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and its regulations, including the medical marijuana access regulations. We are responsible for national leadership and coordination in areas of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation, and we provide services to First Nations.
Under the UN and international conventions, we are empowered to issue export and import authorizations and certificates, enforce national controls over things such as precursors and essential chemicals, provide information on developments in abuse of and illicit traffic in psychotropic substances, estimate quantities to be manufactured, exported, imported or inventoried, and report on consumption/utilization and the number of industrial establishments and services within the country.
We are a member of three major organizations: The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Inter- American Drug Abuse Control Commission and the World Health Organization's Global Research Network on HIV Prevention in Drug-Using Populations. There are three international conventions that guide domestic legislation, enforcement and control, as shown in the box on the right. The 1961 convention is the single convention on narcotic drugs, and there is also the 1972 protocol to that. The 1971 convention is on psychotropic drugs, and the 1988 is on illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
These treaties require that governments exercise control over production and distribution of narcotic and psychotropic substances, combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking, maintain the necessary administrative machinery and report to international organizations on actions taken. They also require that narcotic and psychotropic substances be limited to medical, scientific purposes only. We place a high priority on international cooperation and work multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally on drug issues.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides the mechanisms to ensure that the export, import, production, distribution, possession and use of internationally regulated substances are confined to medical, scientific and industrial purposes.
The CDSA came into being in 1997, and it was a modernization and consolidation of the existing legislation before the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Since then, we have been putting in place the regulations to create a comprehensive regulatory framework under the CDSA, and the two of most interest are the marijuana medical access regulations, which came into being in 2001, and the precursor control regulations, which are currently going through the regulatory process.
I want to turn to medical marijuana. Health Canada is interested in the potential of marijuana as a medicine, but we are also concerned about the mitigation of potential harm. As with any drug, it is a balance between efficacy and safety.
This is a smoked product, and like any other, the smoke contains hundreds of substances, many of which are carcinogenic. Much research remains to be done on the efficacy and safety of marijuana for medical purposes.
There is some research that shows that, when expressed on a per-cigarette basis, marijuana has between 50 and 100 per cent higher tar ratios than tobacco, depending upon the smoking conditions that pertain.
We also know that people smoke marijuana differently from tobacco. They take a deeper pull. They take it right down into their lungs and hold it longer. That does create concerns for us about exposure.
There remains much work to be done on chronic use. Some studies demonstrate histopathological changes at the molecular level. However, strong, valid studies evaluating the risk of lung cancer are lacking.
Health Canada believes there is a need to advance the scientific knowledge of both the efficacy and the safety associated with the use of marijuana, and for us research is a priority.
Marijuana has not been approved as a therapeutic product anywhere in the world due to the lack of scientific evidence. Health Canada, working with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has moved to facilitate research on the medical use of marijuana. The five-year Medical Marijuana Research Plan, MMRP, was put in place and ends in 2007. It has estimated funding of up to $7.5 million.
Currently, there are two studies in development. One is a pilot study at McGill, with about 32 patients, to evaluate the effects of smoked marijuana on chronic neuropathic pain. The Community Research Initiative of Toronto is doing the second study, looking at the efficacy of smoked cannabis in appetite stimulation in persons living with HIV/AIDS.
In addition, we are exploring broad-based clinical trials that could be used to collect safety data. We are hoping to include most of the people currently authorized through the MMAR to gather information from the patients who are using it for a broad range of conditions.
The regulations came into force on July 30, 2001. Health Canada is concerned about people suffering from grave and debilitating diseases, and the regulations were brought in to address these concerns at the same time as we continue to try to gain scientific evidence of marijuana's use as a medicine.
These regulations authorize individuals to possess and/or cultivate marijuana and exempt them from prosecution under the CDSA in specific and limited circumstances. The three categories of people who may possess marijuana for medical purposes are indicated on the slide. The categories are managed through medical interventions, in that group 1 requires their own physician, group 2 requires one specialist, and group 3 requires two specialists to approve their application.
Coming up with the specific disease conditions included in those categories was somewhat difficult, in that most of the available evidence is anecdotal. There is very little solid, clinically derived evidence that would stand up to scientific-proof methodology. However, we used documentation that was available to us from the Institute of Medicine and from experience in other countries. All this experience was analyzed, and those conditions for which we felt there was sufficient evidence were included in these categories.
The regulations have only been in place for coming up to 11 months, almost a year. We are putting an evaluation process in place. We are setting up a multi-stakeholder advisory committee that will review the effectiveness of the applications, the prescribing guidelines, and the mechanisms for distribution and the resolution of outstanding issues. It will have 15 to 20 members and an external chair.
We are also speaking to focus groups, primarily physicians, to identify some of the problems they have with administering the regulations and options for resolving those issues. In addition, we are doing individual interviews with applicants, users and professionals on a range of issues, to hear from them how the regulations are working and to gather more information for policy development.
You had asked how many applications have been received and approved. Under section 56, as of May 3, 658 exemptions had been granted and 501 were still active. In terms of the MMAR, as of May 3, 490 applications were received, 255 have been authorized, and 164 personal production licences and 11 designated personal licences have been issued. The rest of the files are open and are incomplete, awaiting more information.
Senator Banks: Before you leave that topic, can you explain the difference between the section 56 exemptions and the MMAR authorizations? I think I understand it, but I would like to make sure.
Ms Lynch: Section 56 of the CDSA provides the minister with the discretion to allow use of a controlled substance under certain circumstances. Section 56 was the way in which we originally provided authorization to use marijuana for medical purposes. That was a wide discretion. The regulations were introduced in order to properly describe the medical conditions for which marijuana could be used. They are more specific and descriptive. We direct applicants to the regulations in order to receive authorizations. However, some of the people who had section 56 exemptions are still in the process of making the transition to the MMAR.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
Ms Lynch: International obligations limit the use of marijuana to medical and scientific purposes. Both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act apply to the supply or distribution of marijuana. Since research is key to where we want to go with medical marijuana, it is appropriate for us to look at the clinical trial approach to the supply. For that, we need a supply of research grade marijuana.
We have entered into a contract with Prairie Plant Systems to put in place the necessary manufacturing and processing requirements to ensure that we have research grade marijuana and that the production adheres to the standards required. We also have to have methods to test the product as it is being developed. We have to be sure that we identify and measure the main active constituents, including the THC and other cannabinoids. These methods are new and need to be reviewed and approved by Health Canada, which all takes time.
The safety of the product is paramount. We need to be sure that we get it right, so that we have a product that meets drug quality and safety requirements. This supply can be used to facilitate both focused and broader-based clinical trials, which could include larger numbers of people, such as those currently authorized under the MMAR.
I want to turn now to the last part of our role within the CDS. Health Canada provides leadership and undertakes national coordination with its partners, and we work through the various mechanisms and structures that we identified earlier. We have given you some examples of initiatives that we feel are moving us forward. The FPT Committee on Injection Drug Use produced the report ``Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada,'' which contains over 30 recommendations. This group will also be producing a reporting framework for injection dug use later this year.
In addition, HIV/AIDS groups conduct research, surveillance and knowledge dissemination related to injection drug use as a risk factor for hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS. Their key activities include sentinel surveillance studies of HIV and hepatitis C and associated behaviours at sites across Canada, as well as monitoring local longitudinal and cross- sectional surveys of drug injection use.
The Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Programme provides $14 million to the provinces and territories to increase and expand their efforts in treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, we work with the provinces to develop best practice documents. This has been an extremely successful endeavour and we have developed a number of best practice reports. In the last two to three years, 54,000 copies of those best practice documents have been disseminated. The evaluation by the users has been very positive.
The Population and Public Health Branch, with support from the National Advisory Committee on FAS/FAE, is developing a broad-based collaborative effort to prevent FAS/FAE and to improve the quality of life for people who have it.
The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada delivers substance abuse prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs to First Nations and also provides funding to the communities to support the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program.
You had questions about research and prevention. We continue to be involved in several research activities. In the first two phases, there were specific epidemiological studies in 1989 and 1994. Since then, we have continued to be involved by adding survey questions and being partners in a number of other surveys, such as the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey.
We also participate in the Health Behaviours in School-Aged Children Survey, which is a World Health Organization cross-national collaborative study. We recently did a research study to assess alcohol and drug abuse in northern Canadians. We do work with the Canadian Community Epidemiological Network on Drug Use, CCENDU, which is operated through the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
There are a number of activities ongoing within Health Canada that deal with substance abuse at the very early stage, addressing the determinants of health through primary prevention with early childhood development initiatives in the Community Action Program for Children.
I mentioned earlier that we are also involved with some municipalities that are trying to address their own drug problems, and specifically, the Vancouver Agreement. The Government of Canada will contribute more than $7 million for community health promotion efforts in Vancouver over the next three years. Through the Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Programme, or ADTR, we will be providing some $3.2 million to the Province of B.C. for their drug alcohol treatment and rehab programs.
In conclusion, the current national drug strategy was approved in 1998. There is a range of activities across government that support the strategy, and we continue to exercise our leadership role.
There is a question of whether the national drug strategy should be refocused and strengthened to meet the needs of the new millennium in an integrated, comprehensive way. We feel that the House and Senate committee recommendations will be helpful in identifying any elements of a new strategy.
The Chairman: We will try to do that.
The researchers may have questions. They will be in touch with you.
Senator Banks: I want to focus my questions on medical use, for the moment.
We have heard, as I know you have, from people all over the world who agree that there is a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that there may be some effective medicinal use, in some circumstances, of marijuana to alleviate some conditions. Everyone who tells us that, including people who are in charge of programs and those who are presently users of marijuana for those purposes, also tells us that there is not enough research. You have referred to everyone doing this on an ad hoc basis.
This question has been outstanding for many years now. We seem to be going around in circles.
You mentioned a few efforts, such as the one at McGill. We had looked into that and heard from its director. It is the tip of the iceberg, if that. No one seems to be doing anything that will produce irrefutable results in determining whether marijuana is effective or not.
We have surmised, as have many others, that there is much impetus for such research. The anecdotal evidence is impetus for research, at the very least. However, the research is not being done in the same way as it would for other therapies. We assume that that is largely because no one would make much money. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in doing research on something that they cannot patent and sell. There is nothing wrong with that. However, that leaves the government.
Given what you have just told us about irrefutable research that needs to be done in order to answer the question, we have to do it. The Government of Canada must do it, or it will not get done — unless somebody is going to fund it out of pure philanthropy, which is extremely unlikely.
Do you see any likelihood that the Government of Canada will undertake the extensive research that needs to be done in order to answer the question? If we were to do that, we would be the world leaders, as we have been in palliative care. Also, it would resolve our dilemma, because we are all still groping around in the dark, including doctors. Are we going in that direction? Do you see that light at the end of the tunnel?
Ms Lynch: We do have the research plan and the research program. We do have $7.5 million for that plan.
Senator Banks: Is that enough?
Ms Lynch: I cannot say at this stage. Interest is being shown in two of our studies. Our chief scientist is working with the Canadian Health Institutes for Research to try to commission more research on the use of marijuana for medical purposes. They have agreed to work with us to try to identify researchers who would be interested in doing this work and ensure that we get a broad base of research projects that will come to grips with some of these issues.
I do not know how much it will cost to do that. With the money that we have, we should be able to identify what we need to come to grips with that problem in the longer term.
The short answer is that we have enough money to get started. I believe we have made a good start on this. The major difficulty is finding the right researchers with the interest to do the work. We are working with CHIR to find those people.
Senator Banks: I cannot imagine, given what we have heard, that there would be any shortage of candidates. I imagine that it is a matter of assessing them.
We have heard that there is a catch-22 with respect to the present application of regulations to people who have been granted authorization for medicinal use of marijuana. The present regulations require, as you have described, several doctors at the different levels of use to recommend that the treatment should be given to the applicant.
We have also heard that the Canadian Medical Protective Association and the CMA have advised their member physicians, including specialists, not to authorize use of marijuana. If they do, their medical protection insurance will be at risk, or worse.
We have heard from several witnesses who have been granted these authorizations in the past. If they were to seek authorization now, the doctor would likely say, ``I would like to sign this, and I know it does you good. However, I am sorry, I cannot continue in practice without insurance, so I am constrained.''
That is the catch-22. If I am such a person, I will now be placed, when my present six-month authorization runs out, in the position of either having to resume the suffering or break the law. I will get marijuana however and wherever I can, in defiance of the law.
This cannot be news to you. You mentioned that you will be meeting with some physicians to discuss the administrative difficulties in this respect. It seems to me that the physicians are, for whatever reason, frustrating the intent, purpose and philosophical thrust of the regulations. I want to know what can we do about it.
Mr. Michols: Perhaps I can first respond to that, and Dr. Lynch can follow.
The policy within Health Canada now is based, as you said earlier, on the need for research. Health Canada got into the situation because the research that was required to substantiate or negate the anecdotal information was not being done.
We proceeded to set up a program that would support the research. It was the decision of the minister of the day that, pending the results of that research, there ought to be an access mechanism for patients who felt that marijuana might be beneficial for their condition.
As Dr. Lynch has said, section 56 of the CDSA was first used. Then the regulations were put into place.
However, the underlying situation still exists. There is no scientific evidence that marijuana is a therapeutic substance. Many people feel that it is beneficial to their situation. There is no legal source of this product.
Health Canada has two acts, the Food and Drugs Act and the Controlled Drug and Substance Act, to take into consideration when dealing with therapeutics. Therapeutic use is currently being claimed for this product.
Without that scientific evidence, the doctors are in a legitimate quandary. For other therapeutic products, doctors rely on information that Health Canada either develops or analyzes through the drug review process. That is the basis for doctors' understanding of particular products. They do not have that analysis in this particular situation.
Through the marijuana medical access regulations, we have eliminated the criminality of possessing and growing for your own purposes.
That is the regulatory regime that is in place. We are working with Prairie Plant Systems, as Ms Lynch has said, to develop a research source for this product that will be made available to patients through legitimate clinical trials.
Until such time as we begin to get the research results and the medical community can determine whether it will prescribe this in legitimate circumstances, there is a conundrum.
Senator Banks: The medical community is not being asked to prescribe marijuana. That is not contemplated in the MMAR, as I understand it. Also, the application includes, or ought to — I am sure that it must — something in which the applicant, the patient, if I can put it that way, indemnifies the physician against any claim. Is there not such a provision in the application?
Mr. Michols: No.
Senator Banks: There should be.
Mr. Michols: We are dealing with a substance that it is claimed to have a therapeutic advantage. The medical community must be involved. They are the ones who are trained to determine whether, at the very least, no harm will be done, even if they cannot determine whether there are benefits. As Ms Lynch has said, we must now sit down with the medical community and determine what they need and what they will do. It is not a case of just making the product available to people who think it will be therapeutic.
Senator Banks: I understand that. I am talking about doctors who believe that it has efficacy, have in the past signed applications and are now being told, ``Stop doing that.''
We have what seems on the face of it — I know it is not your fault — an absurd situation in the which the Government of Canada, the department and the minister, have said there are circumstances in which these people, for whatever reason, ought to be allowed to have medical marijuana. That is being frustrated, on the other hand, by very real and quite proper concerns on the part of doctors.
Are we saying that until that is resolved, everyone will fall off the cliff and everyone will be breaking the law six months from today, if not in a shorter time, because doctors will not sign the applications?
Mr. Michols: Doctors are signing the application forms. There is the evidence, as Ms Lynch has said, of applications that have come in under the regime that is now in place.
Senator Banks: Some doctors are not signing them.
Mr. Michols: Exactly. That is their choice under their medical ethics code.
Senator Banks: Are you pursuing that question with the medical profession assiduously?
Ms Lynch: Yes, we are. We have already met with the CMA and are meeting with them again this month. We are also doing the evaluation that will help us to gather information.
We are finding that the applications are increasing. They are certainly not dropping off. We are not seeing a reduction in applications on a month-by-month basis.
Mr. Michols: The circumstances that are built into the act were carefully thought through. That is being thought through in conjunction with the medical community: What conditions, even from the anecdotal information, might be more susceptible to the use of this substance?
Senator Banks: One final question on that. Are you familiar with a vaporizer? We saw it demonstrated. That seems to have at least the possibility of eliminating the tar problem in the medical use of marijuana.
Mr. Michols: We are very hopeful that there will be a range of delivery mechanisms. If marijuana, but more likely the cannabinoids that are the active substances in it, does have medical advantages in various circumstances, we are hopeful that other delivery mechanisms will be developed and research will be undertaken. That may solve part of the problem you mentioned about getting others involved, because there is the potential for patents and so on.
As Ms Lynch said at the outset, and the reason that Ms Goulet is here on this subject, the smoked form of marijuana is very problematic.
Senator Banks: The part of the application to which I was referring says in section F that the applicant is aware that no notice of compliance has been issued under the Food and Drugs Act concerning the safety and effectiveness of marijuana as a drug and that the applicant understands the significance of that fact.
Do you not think that it would be pretty difficult for an applicant, having agreed to that, to find recourse against a physician for having recommended it? I am sure that is the reason this was put in there.
Mr. Michols: It was put in there to ensure that the applicants were informed of the situation, yes.
Senator Banks: Will you be asking the physicians whether a flat-out indemnification, a ``save harmless'' phrase, would make them or their insurers more comfortable — a flat-out, 100 per cent, no-holds-barred indemnification of the physician by the applicant?
Ms Lynch: We are certainly discussing their concerns. I do not know whether that is possible. We would have to consider it.
Senator Banks: I hope you will consider it.
The Chairman: I have some questions on the drug strategy and then I will return to the question of medical marijuana.
Many departments are involved in the strategy. Have you discussed whether one central agency should be responsible for the drug strategy?
Mr. Michols: Have we discussed that amongst the departments? No, it is fair to say that we would not.
One of the reasons is that it is a very complex area. The various departments that are involved in the design and delivery of Canada's drug strategy are involved for many reasons that peripherally touch on the drug strategy. As Ms Lynch has said, Health Canada is involved for several reasons, including dealing with the consequences of many of these substances as well as the control.
We have not discussed the benefits and disadvantages of one central agency with the other departments.
The Chairman: You have read chapter 11 of the last Auditor General's report more than once. She says:
Canada requires stronger leadership and more consistent co-ordination to set a strategy, common objectives, and collective performance expectations.
What concrete action have you taken since the tabling of that report?
Ms Lynch: We have continued to play the coordinating role. I will meet with all of the key departments to try to come to grips with where some of the gaps are, to identify where we could do a better job, if the feeling is that we are not doing as well as we should.
We are also looking at getting a better grip on information, working with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse to try to identify what information is out there for policy- and decision-making, where the gaps are and how we might fill some of those. Currently, we are mostly working with our partners to find ways to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the work that we are already doing.
The Chairman: Speaking of the CCSA, do you feel that they have a large enough budget to do the job they need to do?
Ms Lynch: We have increased the budget for the next three years. In 2002-03, they have $1.5 million. I sat with the board at their recent meeting when they tabled their business plan for the next three years. It is ambitious, although I feel that they are on the right track. They will be able to do a substantial job with the funding they have.
It is a case of working together as partners so that we do not duplicate efforts and get in each other's way. We need to ensure that we are in lockstep. The CCSA is ready to do an excellent job with the funding it has.
The Chairman: Research is mentioned frequently in your document, which is appropriate. The knowledge base on that subject needs to be expanded. As you surely know, in the last 10 years more than 4,000 studies have been reported on the subject. Not all are relevant. Some are even misleading on purpose.
We need a body that will look into that and offer an objective, unbiased and independent view. When I say ``independent,'' I tend to also include of the minister. For too long, politics was a barrier to the acquisition of knowledge.
What would be the reaction of the department to the creation of a body that, with the proper financing and resources, would be independently responsible for studying the knowledge base already available, and then expanding it?
Mr. Michols: There is no denying that all departments involved in Canada's drug strategy would like to see greater analysis and monitoring and even better reporting systems, as the Auditor General has suggested. Whether that should be done by one agency for reasons that you raise, or whether the capacity best resides in the departments that are involved in Canada's drug strategy would depend in large measure on an analysis of the pros and cons.
As I have mentioned, there are a number of parts of Health Canada that deal with the control or the mitigation of the results of the situation, for example, the Solicitor General, the RCMP and others. Such an agency should be considered, but it will depend, as you say, on the policy and whether it is more cost effective to pull it all together or keep it separate. That will also depend on the resources that are allocated to it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: My next question is for Ms Goulet. The comparison between tobacco and cannabis, mainly marijuana, stops at inhaling. In this sense, the repeated nature of the action is not the same: most cannabis smokers do not use regularly, but occasionally. Some abuse the drug, but cannabis users cannot be compared to tobacco users. This is a statement we have heard a number of times. What is your opinion on the subject?
Ms Hélène Goulet, Director General, Tobacco Control Program, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch: The research tells us that marijuana smoke can be as harmful as, if not more than, tobacco smoke, both for the smoker and for the non-smoker exposed to it. In this sense, any policy decision concerning marijuana must prevent any confusion in the minds of Canadians by ensuring that they do not believe marijuana use is less harmful than tobacco use.
In the past few years, considerable efforts have been made through the country's human and financial resources, at all levels of government, to reduce the consumption and prevalence of use of tobacco. Thousands of people fall victim to tobacco each year, approximately one thousand as a result of second-hand smoke.
The Chairman: You know that Canadians do it all the same?
Ms Goulet: Yes.
The Chairman: I am not questioning your good faith. However, what you are saying seems to me increasingly to be an evasive answer, because most cannabis users told us — in Montreal, however, an inhaler was shown to us by a person who had a proper exemption — that combustion was the best way to obtain the desired effect. No one told us that he smoked the equivalent of 25 cannabis cigarettes a day. A vast majority of users, particularly those who use it for medical purposes, told us that one puff was enough to obtain the desired effect. In fact most of the people who choose to use cannabis for medical purposes, when they see how complicated the process is for obtaining an exemption, immediately turn to the compassion clubs where THC concentrations are quite high. One puff is enough and often only once a day. You cannot compare a puff of marijuana to 25 cigarettes smoked a day!
Some Canadians say we're not living on the same planet. They hear your opinion and that of the Canadian Medical Association. You rebel against this possibility. They see Health Canada's favouritism toward a smoked product. Tobacco and cannabis can't be compared.
Ms Goulet: We have to consider two things. With respect to Health Canada and the possible confusion around the public policy, I don't believe there are very serious applications for medical use purposes in the use of marijuana relative to that of tobacco. People can easily make that distinction in their minds.
The confusion would stem from a public policy that would permit liberal marijuana use for recreational purposes compared to that of tobacco, which we are trying to make less and less acceptable, at the same time realizing that marijuana, when smoked, has similar or worse effects compared to cigarettes, which is smoked differently. The damage could be even greater in that case.
The Chairman: I'm trying to restrict our discussion to medical use. Recreational use, I agree, is a completely different field. A different culture also applies.
Ms Goulet: Our public policy clearly explains the difference between the two.
The Chairman: I agree with you about the carcinogens contained in cannabis, which are more numerous than those in tobacco, but people who use cannabis for medical purposes tell us that there is no comparison between the two. It is easy to say that it is a false pretence.
Ms Goulet: I understand your dilemma.
The Chairman: I come back to the question of medical use and exemptions.
[English]
I have a few questions on data. Before 1999, is anyone aware whether exemptions were given under section 56 or before Bill C-8, the previous narcotic act? I am sure there was a similar section in the old act that contained a scheme of exemptions by the minister.
Mr. Michols: To my knowledge, and we will double-check, there were no exemptions under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prior to the setting up of the medical marijuana access regulations.
The Chairman: Exemptions were given by the minister under section 56 after the coming into force of the new act in 1997, and last summer. Are those the numbers?
Mr. Michols: That is right. That was in conjunction with the announcement concerning the medical marijuana research program.
The Chairman: With all due respect, and in recognition of your effort, the minister was reacting to the court decision. That is how he was forced to use the scheme for the exemption process.
Was there any exemption given before the courts forced the minister into doing this? I am not referring to Mr. Parker's case. I am referring to the decision made in Ottawa ordering the minister to give an exemption.
Mr. Michols: I do not think there was necessarily a straight cause and effect. Certainly, at the time the court cases were ongoing, we were working on not only the development of a research program, but also the question of exemptions.
As Senator Banks has indicated, there was a tremendous amount of anecdotal information. As Senator Banks also indicated, the research was not taking place and Health Canada encouraged that. We could not undertake it because we also administer the Food and Drugs Act. We are the regulator of therapeutic products. We would have to fund it through an arm's-length operation, like the Medical Research Council of Canada, and then ultimately, CIHR. At the same time, we recognized that there was substantial anecdotal information and a fair demand. Section 56 was used to exempt those whom the medical community felt should be exempted. The regulations put a more rigorous framework into place thereafter.
The Chairman: Looking at your data on exemptions, I see there are still 501 active exemptions under section 56, and they will have to be converted to the new MMAR.
Ms Lynch: If they still wish to continue to have authorization. In some cases, extensions were given when there was a legitimate reason why they could not fulfil all the requirements prior to their exemption expiring.
The Chairman: Did you have enough information in your files to give them that automatically?
Ms Lynch: No. If people had a section 56 exemption that was due to expire and they were in the process of applying under the regulations, then we could give an extension.
The Chairman: Why is there a reduction, from the 658 exemptions granted under section 56, to only 501 still active?
Ms Lynch: A number of those would have already switched to the MMAR. Some may not have wanted it any longer. Unfortunately, they may have passed away.
The Chairman: I am sure that if Mr. Parker were here, he would give us permission to use his name. Are you aware that he requested an exemption and did not receive it?
Ms Lynch: That case is before the courts right now.
The Chairman: That was the one in Ontario. He won.
Mr. Michols: It is now before the courts.
The Chairman: That is the decision that triggered the regulations. Are you aware that Mr. Parker was refused?
Ms Lynch: We are aware of Mr. Parker. We are aware that he is in court with us at the moment, yes.
The Chairman: I wish to ask about research into the danger of certain substances. We have been told that some Chinese herbalists are selling products before they have been authorized under the Medical Act.
[Translation]
They proceed with diagnoses of disease. That is not what concerns me. Rather it is the concern of the professional associations. These stores sell substances which, from what we're told, are much more dangerous than cannabis and that's what concerns us. Can you comment on this information that has been transmitted to us?
[English]
Mr. Michols: I am not quite sure how to answer that question. Chinese herbalists and Chinese medical practitioners — anyone in Canada purporting to sell a therapeutic product — are governed by the Food and Drugs Act and by the inspection and manufacturing regime. Health Canada has the authority to investigate any situation of that nature and shut down the operation if it proves to be selling a product claimed to have a therapeutic benefit without it having been approved under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.
The Chairman: After hearing that, I went to one to see how it was operating. A huge amount of bulk substances is sold in those operations. Have you tested all of them?
Mr. Michols: I do not know.
The Chairman: I do not want to mention the one I visited because I do not want that gentleman to be harassed. There were an immense number of substances there.
Mr. Michols: I should say that there is another section within Health Canada that has been occupied for some time with developing regulations around natural health products and making claims or not making claims for therapeutic value. That has been a concern for a number of years and a regulatory regime will be brought forward. We have the power, should it be determined that a substance that is harmful to Canadians is being sold, to move in and deal with it.
The Chairman: Do you not think there is a double standard here, if we compare the rigour with which we are dealing with cannabis, and all the research accorded to it, with the research undertaken on many of these Oriental substances?
Mr. Michols: No, I do not. To some extent, this goes back to your questions concerning the comparison of tobacco with medical marijuana. We are concerned, first, with the potential harm caused to Canadians by the sale and use of these materials. We are also concerned with the therapeutic claims being made for them. Cannabis and the use of smoked marijuana happens to be an important topic at the moment, but we are equally interested in, and have pulled from the market, Chinese remedies that have presented a major health threat to Canadians.
If there is a threat to Canadians, we have the powers to take action.
The Chairman: Turning to the subject of Prairie Plant Systems, I understand that the crop was rejected for research?
Ms Lynch: A drug must be developed under certain standard conditions. You must be sure that you know exactly what it is you have. Prairie Plant Systems has been working very hard to come forward with a research product. That has taken much longer than we expected.
The crop that they currently have was not developed under standard, documented conditions. Therefore, it does not meet the grade for a drug.
The Chairman: I am sure it would not take much to convince you that some of your exemptees would use the cannabis that was rejected for research, at least if they were asked.
Mr. Michols: That may be true. Going back to the comments we made earlier on why Health Canada is involved in the study of medical marijuana, it is to develop the scientific evidence that is required to determine whether there is a benefit.
In order to develop that scientific evidence, one must have a base product that meets research standards. It was not a question of whether Prairie Plant Systems did in fact grow marijuana; it was a question of whether the product they developed was of a consistent, research-grade standard that could be used in legitimate scientific research.
The Chairman: I understand that. It was all in good faith. The first crop did not pass the test. However, the crop is still there. Why not let those who are legally entitled use it for medical reasons?
Mr. Michols: As Dr. Lynch explained, we are guided by international conventions and Canadian laws. We are in the business of developing a source of research-grade marijuana for research projects that will give us an informational basis for future decisions. We are not in the business of supplying to individuals.
The Chairman: We are talking about compassion now. It is a crop that will not be used for research, for many good reasons. That marijuana cannot be used. We all understand that the regulation allowed for personal use cultivation. However, there are those who are not able to cultivate cannabis. The conventions do not object to the medical use of cannabis. I am sure someone in the government can decide that, since that crop is not usable for research, those who want to use it and are legally entitled under the regulation can do so.
Mr. Michols: We are still governed by the necessity of maintaining a research program. We are designing a research program to determine the scientific evidence that will be required to make longer-term decisions. We do not know enough yet about the potential harm caused by this product. I am not sure it would be responsible to make the product available outside of research activity. That is what the international conventions allow.
The Chairman: We visited the Vancouver Compassion Club at least twice. It has a membership of more than 2,000. Was there any discussion about establishing some kind of partnership to use their data and set up a research protocol involving those members who have been using marijuana for the last six years?
Mr. Michols: I am not aware of the data they have been collecting and under what research protocols, but they have an opportunity to apply under the CHIR to develop the research information we require. They would then have to meet a range of research protocols that are acceptable to Health Canada.
The Chairman: We heard from Mr. Ware in Montreal, who is studying the effects of marijuana. The cannabis he uses has a maximum of 8 per cent THC. Various users and Compassion Club representatives told us that they use cannabis containing up to 26 per cent THC. I do not know if you are familiar with the Vancouver Compassion Club? It offers a menu of 15 strains of cannabis for various types of illnesses.
Ms Lynch: I did not know the level of detail that you have just given me. I do know that Compassion Clubs provide marijuana of various grades.
Mr. Michols: We know that a marijuana crop can have zero to 26 per cent THC. We know there are gradations. The point of the exercise is to determine what levels accomplish what benefits with what risks, which is the reason for the research program. A crop with 26 per cent THC is not necessarily better, and could in fact be more dangerous in particular circumstances and for particular conditions.
Therapeutic products have a range of dosage strengths that have been proven, through scientific tests, to be effective in particular situations. We have none of that scientific evidence for marijuana.
We do know that there are dangers in using smoking as a delivery mechanism. There are known risks. There are not yet proven benefits. That is the dilemma or conundrum we are facing within the research program and that is the basis for Health Canada's interest in the subject.
The Chairman: We have been told that there was a request to have the research protocol that has been approved also approved by the United States health department and DEA. Is that true?
Ms Lynch: Our first attempt at sourcing the marijuana for research purposes was through NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in the States. They have seed and dried product. We are still negotiating with them for some dry product.
In order to use their product, we have to have the protocols for which the product will be used approved by both their health department and NIDA. Once they have approved the scientific protocol, then it has to go to the DEA for permission to export it.
Mr. Michols: That process, and I suspect the reason behind your question, was one of the reasons why we felt it necessary for Health Canada to develop a Canadian source, so that we would at least have control over the quality of the product and access to it for our researchers.
Senator Banks: That would be on our terms.
Mr. Michols: Yes, on our terms. In my opinion, nothing would be worse than starting a research project with a particular product upon which we are standardizing our protocol, and then not have continued access to that product. That was why the decision was made to develop a Canadian source.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Benzodiazepines are said to be much more dangerous than cannabis. They are often found at the sites of certain accidents. Why then have two different control systems? Why have a much more prohibitive control system for cannabis than benzodiazepines?
[English]
Mr. Michols: Let me begin the answer and Ms Lynch can continue. Benzodiazepines are approved products for therapeutic purposes. They present dangers if abused, but they are approved for use in therapeutic measures, as are a number of other controlled substances, such as methadone. There is scientific evidence that it can be beneficial if used in this manner for these conditions. We are still lacking that evidence for marijuana. There have been approved pill forms of cannabis, so it is available, but we also have anecdotal information that it is not appropriate in a number of instances.
To say that benzodiazepines are more dangerous than cannabis is correct, but they have been approved, we know the dangers, and we can regulate accordingly.
Ms Lynch: In addition, the MMAR only ensures that the individual who has been authorized to use it will not be prosecuted under the act. It is a different regime from the one that manages a drug such as benzodiazepine, which has undergone an investigational drug process and the orders for compliance before being marketed in Canada. We are not there yet with marijuana.
The Chairman: Ephedrine is a concern in the U.S., and there is a draft regulation under study. Can you inform the committee of the status of that regulation and when it will be in place?
Ms Lynch: We went to Gazette Part One on April 27, and we are in the comment period. We hope to go to Gazette Part Two in the fall and have the regulations promulgated by the end of the calendar year. In the fall, we will prepare to receive applications so that we can begin applying the full regulations in January.
The Chairman: I am sure your counterparts in the U.S. are informed of that so they can tell their Congressmen that something is in the making. In the end, Canada will control ephedrine more than the U.S.
Ms Lynch: I am not sure I can comment on that, but I can say that our target date is the end of the calendar year.
Senator Banks: Mr. Michols, the frustration that you may hear in my comments and questions is not with you, but rather with the policies, and I know it is your job to express them. I want to return to the chairman's questions about the failed crop — the one that was grown in a mine in Manitoba. The story is, I must tell you, a subject for comedians. The determination was made to grow marijuana for research purposes, but it was also determined that it be grown in a mine in Manitoba. Only the Government of Canada could make such a determination. What will happen to the failed crop? Will we burn it?
Mr. Michols: I will ask Ms Lynch to answer the question about that crop, while I will speak to the underlying humour. The decision to grow the government source of marijuana in a mine was actually an excellent one —
Senator Banks: — not so far.
Mr. Michols: — absolutely, so far, because of the security provisions, the opportunity to control the temperature, the humidity, the growing conditions generally and because it is hydroponic. That was one reason why, in a competitive process, this particular bid was accepted. Whether that is fully appreciated by all is not certain.
Senator Banks: There are experts in British Columbia who are critical.
Mr. Michols: — ``experts'' in quotation marks, perhaps.
Senator Banks: — horticulturally speaking.
Mr. Michols: — as far as the crop is concerned.
Ms Lynch: I want to come back to that. It is not a failed crop, in the sense that this is a developmental process. Prairie Plant Systems were given seeds that came from mixtures of all kinds of marijuana. As you know, there are many varieties.
We had hoped to obtain seeds from NIDA. That way, the seeds would have been characterized and we would have been assured of receiving marijuana ``A'' seeds. In this situation, we did not. Rather, we worked with marijuana ``C'' seeds, so the growing plants had to be characterized. We then had to work out which plants had the right characteristics for research purposes. It is not a failed crop, but rather part of the development of the research crop.
Senator Banks: What will happen to it?
Ms Lynch: We can use it for various things, and we were talking with PPS about that recently. It can be used for testing to determine the cannabinoid content of a given seed type. We can also use it for various experimental purposes so that PPS can continue to develop its work in coming up with a research grade. It does not need to be destroyed. There are things we can do with it.
Senator Banks: The international conventions permit the signatories to do medical research on marijuana. Do they not also permit its medical use?
Mr. Michols: They would if we knew that marijuana was a medicine.
Senator Banks: However, no one in the world knows that.
Mr. Michols: That is exactly right.
Senator Banks: It is a frustrating circle.
Mr. Michols: Yes, but there are other controlled substances that have, through research, been approved for medical uses, such as heroin, cocaine, methadone, in a particular circumstance for a particular condition. We are not there yet with medical marijuana. We hope that we will be with all due speed, because it would solve a number of problems for you as well as for us.
Senator Banks: Where do we ``bump into'' those international conventions? You have been granting conditional discharges for certain kinds of simple possession convictions for a long time. Does that conflict with an international convention? How much leeway do we have? How far can we take this before an international hammer comes down on us? I am not limiting the question necessarily to the area of research.
Ms Lynch: There is discomfort at the INCB, the International Narcotics Control Board, with what we are doing, as you know from their annual report. They believe this is going further than they would like to see. As Mr. Michols mentioned, normally, products that are controlled substances are only provided to users once there is sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety. The INCB is concerned about where we are currently headed.
I do not know at what point they would come down with a hammer. We are certainly discussing it with them, and they do have concerns.
The Chairman: On that specifically, as you know, the three conventions clearly state that nothing in any of those conventions can be contrary to a national constitution or a national charter of rights. The court has said, and I hope that is the answer you gave to Geneva, that their decision was taken through an analysis of the fundamental rights of Mr. Parker.
Ms Lynch: Yes, of course.
The Chairman: The researchers will, of course, be in touch with you to find the final answers to our questions.
[Translation]
From the Department of Justice, we have Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Mr. Croft Michaelson, Director and Senior General Counsel, Strategic Prosecution Policy Section, and from the National Crime Prevention Centre, Ms Patricia Begin, Director, Research and Evaluation.
We had intended to hear you until 12:30, but it would be preferable to stop at 12:15 since a witness is being added to our list at the end of the afternoon. Your presentation will be followed by a question period.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: I'm appearing here to make a few comments and to answer questions concerning criminal law policy with regard to international conventions.
Mr. Croft Michaelson and Ms Patricia Begin each have a presentation to make, and I'm going to allow Mr. Michaelson to begin.
[English]
Mr. Croft Michaelson, Director and Senior General Counsel, Strategic Prosecution Policy Section, Department of Justice: Honourable senators, at the outset I would like to provide some background on the Federal Prosecution Service to give you an understanding of its role and mandate in Canada. We are the lead prosecution agency in respect of drug offences. We prosecute offences in every province and territory under a variety of federal statutes, including the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We have 300 full-time staff counsel in 13 offices across the country, and where our staff counsel cannot prosecute, we have some 750 standing agents who conduct drug prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General.
Most of our work relates to drug prosecutions. I thought it would be helpful to give you some understanding of the exercise of jurisdiction in Canada. It is shared in the sense that, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, provinces can exercise jurisdiction if a drug proceeding was commenced at the instance of the provincial government.
To date, two provinces have exercised that jurisdiction. Those are Quebec and, to a lesser extent, the Province of New Brunswick. In Quebec, the Federal Prosecution Service only prosecutes offences that have been investigated by the RCMP. In the rest of Canada, apart from New Brunswick, the service prosecutes drug offences that have been investigated by a municipal police force, a provincial police force or the RCMP.
The main determinant of our prosecution work is the activity of the police. The police investigate the offence and lay the charge, and then we prosecute. The activities of the RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces determine the number of investigations and charges. In some jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick, the police are required to seek Crown approval before laying a charge.
We have seen continued significant growth in drug-related criminal activity over recent years. The volume and complexity of the cases that we confront generally in drug prosecutions has continued to increase. I will provide you with a brief overview of some historical trends. There has been a long-term downward trend in the number of adults charged with drug possession in Canada from 1977 through to 2000. In 1977, 45,000 persons were charged with drug possession, and in 2000, the number was approximately 25,000. Conversely, during the same period, the number of adults charged with trafficking, importation and cultivation has increased from approximately 8,000 in the late 1970s to 17,000 in the early 1990s.
We observed an increase in drug offences in the late 1990s. Between 1998 and 1999, the total number of adults charged with a drug offence increased by 12 per cent. Most of that is attributable to an increase in cannabis offences. The trend continued in 2000, with a 9 per cent increase in the number of adults charged with drug offences.
Between 1998 and 1999, the total number of adults charged with a cultivation offence, the cultivation of cannabis, increased by 41 per cent and an increase in trafficking charges was also observed. The total number of adults charged with drug trafficking increased by 15 per cent.
Some recent reports suggest that the increase in charges is not necessarily the result of more aggressive enforcement activity on the part of the police, but rather it reflects a real increase in the activity. One report that focused on marijuana cultivation in British Columbia indicated that the increase in cases there was not due to proactive police enforcement, but rather an increase in the number of public complaints.
I am sure you are aware of the 1999 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, which showed an increase in consumption. British Columbia is interesting, because it accounts for some 48 per cent of the costs we incur for drug prosecutions conducted by agents. I am sure honourable senators are aware of these statistics, but the rate for all types of drug offences in British Columbia is almost double the national average, with 261 per 100,000 for cannabis possession versus 147 per 100,000, in the year 2000.
We have also observed an increase in drug case volumes in British Columbia in 2000. We have noted a significant increase in cultivation cases over the period 1997 to 2000.
On average, the number of marijuana-grow operations on a per-annum basis increased 36 per cent between 1997 and 2000. The size and value of those operations increased by an average of 40 per cent per year during the same period.
I know that the committee is particularly interested in cannabis offences. Although the long-term charting trend for simple possession of cannabis has been downward in recent years, the charging trend has been upward.
Twenty-five people were charged with simple possession in the year 2000. That is a 26 per cent increase over 1996 and an 18 per cent increase over 1999.
Certainly the statistics demonstrate that charging patterns vary significantly across police services, from a low of 25 charges per 100,000 of population for cannabis possession in Vancouver to a high of 210 per 100,000 in Thunder Bay in 1998. Depending on where you are in Canada, you will observe a difference in charging practices.
The cost of drug prosecution —
Senator Banks: I apologize for interrupting. Do those numbers for possession include charges that were incidental to other crimes?
Mr. Michaelson: I imagine that they would. These are overall statistics. They should include incidental charges.
The cost of drug-related prosecutions conducted by staff counsel is approximately $35 million per annum. The cost of drug prosecutions conducted by our agent prosecutors was approximately $22 million last fiscal year.
The total cost of drug-related prosecutions conducted by the Federal Prosecution Service is approximately $57 million per annum. Our analysis for the year 2000-01 determined that the cost of prosecuting cannabis possession, out of our overall budget of $57 million, was approximately $4.8 million, roughly $5 million, or less than 10 per cent of the total budget.
I know the committee had an interest in sentencing in drug-possession cases. We do not maintain a database that records the sentences imposed on offenders. Our information on sentencing patterns is drawn from statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, as well as anecdotal information from our prosecutors.
If you look at simple possession overall, rather than just for cannabis and cocaine, 58 per cent of the offenders found guilty of possession in 1999-2000 received a fine. The average fine was in the range of $200. Nineteen per cent of offenders received probation, 13 per cent received a jail sentence, and 9 per cent received another type of sanction, such as a discharge or a suspended sentence.
Over the past several years, the Department of Justice has been involved in a fairly intensive examination of the Federal Prosecution Service, with a view to better understanding the pressures and demands on it. More importantly, we want to gain an insight into how the Federal Prosecution Service can best serve Canadians in the future.
As a result of that examination, six priorities for action were identified. One is to identify and implement alternatives to prosecution where it is appropriate to do so. We have been aggressively pursuing the development of a broad range of alternative measures.
One that is available is referred to by prosecutors as ``diversion,'' where first-time offenders who have been charged with simple possession of cannabis are diverted out of the formal criminal justice system. The offender is required to do something else, as it were. If they do that other thing that they are required to do, then the charge is withdrawn or stayed. Typically, in many jurisdictions, the form of diversion would be some form of community service that the offender would undertake locally.
We have drug treatment pilot projects, of which you are probably aware, in Toronto and Vancouver, where addicted offenders are referred to a fairly rigorous court-monitored treatment program.
We have recently begun to move toward implementation of what we are referring to as the ``deferred prosecution pilot project,'' in which prosecutors post a peace bond for offenders who have been charged with possession of cannabis in the Province of Manitoba. That is a pilot project. Essentially, if a first-time offender has been charged with simple possession, the prosecutor will assess a variety of criteria. If offenders were considered appropriate for the program, they would indicate that they would abide by the law, keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The prosecutor would stay the charges. As long as those offenders were not back before the court system within a period of one year, the matter would essentially be discontinued.
We have another innovative program in the Toronto area, an ``alternatives to custody'' program that targets youth who are candidates for open or secure custody. A program of care is developed for the young offender. The offender is referred to community services and receives a sentence other than an open or secured custodial disposition.
We have also entered into a recent diversion pilot project in Vancouver for cannabis possession with Elizabeth Frye. That involves community service.
Those are the type of alternate measures that we have been exploring over the past several years.
I would be happy to take questions after the presentation of Ms Begin.
Ms Patricia Begin, Director, Research and Evaluation, National Crime Prevention Centre: Honourable senators, in the interests of time, I will not spend much time talking about the relationship between the National Crime Prevention Centre strategy and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. That information is in both languages in your information packages.
Rather, I will talk about the strategy and some of the approaches taken to prevention of drug abuse and related criminal activity. I will then speak briefly about some of the high-level findings that have emerged from the evaluation of the Toronto Drug Treatment Court.
Briefly, the National Crime Prevention Centre is part of the Government of Canada's action plan to reduce crime by addressing its root causes and building stronger, healthier communities.
The key objectives are to mobilize partners, including all levels of government, communities and individuals, to help communities find local solutions to local problems when crime and victimization occur; to promote public awareness of crime prevention; and to conduct research on crime prevention and identify model or best practices on the reduction and prevention of crime victimization.
The strategy employs a proactive crime prevention methodology through social development approaches, and attempts, through its funding programs, policies and research, to address the personal, social and economic risk factors that lead some individuals to engage in criminal acts or become victims of crime. That would include drug abuse and related criminal activity.
To achieve its objectives, the National Crime Prevention Centre, which administers the strategy, works with a broad array of stakeholder groups in Canada. For example, we know that drug addiction and related criminal activity is a social, legal and health issue. As such, it is a multidisciplinary and shared responsibility.
That responsibility must involve collaboration between governments. We work very closely with our provincial and territorial partners, community organizations, health services, schools, individuals, criminal courts and enforcement agencies.
A key partner in the national strategy is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Crime and victimization problems occur at the local level, in cities, towns, communities and neighbourhoods. Therefore, solutions and responses must be developed in partnership with relevant stakeholders, such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
We have provided FCM with financial support for its municipal drug strategy. I believe their representatives have appeared before this committee and provided some information on that, so I will not go into details.
The national strategy to address drug addiction and abuse and related criminal activities includes pilot demonstration projects such as the Toronto Drug Treatment Court. There is also significant support provided to the City of Vancouver as part of its Downtown Eastside Revitalization Project. As I mentioned, Health, the Solicitor General and the National Crime Prevention Centre provide support to FCM's municipal drug strategy and its three- phase project.
In addition, the national strategy is involved in mobilization efforts in communities across Canada. Some of those activities involve building networks for crime prevention as it relates to drug abuse, raising awareness, public meetings, educational programs, workshops, mentoring programs, conferences and so forth. I have provided in the package of material a list of the funded projects in which illicit drugs are the focus as of June 5, 2002. That dates from June 1998, when the strategy was launched. There is four years' worth of information there for you.
The Toronto Drug Treatment Court opened its doors in December 1998 with funding support from the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. As most honourable senators are aware, this was the first drug treatment court in Canada.
I thought I would talk about some of the assumptions that underlie drug treatment courts in general. The first is that drug addiction is frequently associated with unemployment, homelessness, physical and sexual child abuse histories, family discord and a range of mental and physical health problems. One thing that the research has shown us is that incarceration alone does not lead to a reduction in drug use and in related criminal activity. Typically, it does not address the root causes associated with drug addiction.
We also know from the research that drug addicts, particularly those involved with street drugs such as cocaine and heroin, are likely to be involved in income-generating crime and heavily involved in the criminal justice and health systems. As such, they are seen to threaten community safety, heighten public fear of crime and disorder, and place considerable demands on both the criminal justice and the health care systems. The research has also shown us that addicted offenders commit fewer crimes when they are enrolled in treatment programs.
Another underlying assumption is that through therapeutic jurisprudence approaches such as drug courts, which are intended to provide rehabilitative and reintegration outcomes for drug-addicted offenders, the criminal justice system, in partnership with treatment providers and community services, can act as a change agent in altering the course of the addict's life.
Thus, to sum up the key assumptions, drug-related criminal behaviour, recidivism and the use of incarceration can be reduced through an alternative justice model that combines judicially supervised treatment with regular urine testing, regular court reporting and inter-agency cooperation. This is, if you will, the theoretical underpinning of drug treatment courts that have evolved since 1989 in the United States.
It is interesting to note the rapid increase in the number of such courts in the U.S. Between 1989 and 1997, 161 courts were set up. By May 2001, 688 jurisdictions had implemented drug treatment courts and an additional 432 were planned. Over 1,000 courts are in operation currently in the United States.
The question that people might ask is, ``Does this mean that drug courts have been shown, in a scientifically rigorous way, to be effective?'' There have been very few comprehensive, well-designed evaluations of drug treatment courts. My understanding is that the situation will be rectified in the near future because some evaluations are being conducted using an experimental design. The results will be released in 2002-03.
At this point, we have very limited outcome data on the impact of drug treatment courts versus alternative approaches. Most of the evaluations or research have taken place within very limited time frames. There has been no significant follow-up to look at whether there has been re-use or abuse of drugs and criminal recidivism. There has been a lack of adequate comparison groups from which to actually draw conclusions about the impact and effects of the program.
There is some evidence of success for those who remained in the programs and graduated. Retention of drug treatment court clients and graduation from the program in the U.S. is high compared with other outpatient treatment programs. Recidivism and drug use among graduates remains low. Drug courts appear to generate a cost savings in law enforcement, probation and jail. What is less clear are the long-term outcomes related to drug use and criminal recidivism and the characteristics of drug-dependent offenders who succeed in such courts.
Briefly, the Toronto evaluation is using a quasi-experimental design. The comparison group is composed of those clients who were assessed as eligible to enter the program and made the decision not to participate in the drug treatment court, but rather go through the traditional criminal justice processing.
Between April 1999, when the evaluation data started to be collected, and October 5, 2001, there were 284 clients involved in the drug treatment court. Eighty-three per cent, or 234, are the experimental group, and 17 per cent constitute the comparison group of 50 clients.
In the experimental group, 16.7 per cent are still in the program; 13.7 or 14 per cent have graduated, which is 32 graduates; and 62 per cent have been expelled. The overall retention is 31 per cent.
One of the things the research has illuminated is that for those drug treatment court clients who make it past the three-month period, the retention rate rises to 50 per cent. The court is attempting, through the data, to better understand the characteristics of those clients who are deemed to be eligible but do not make it, and who are expelled or withdraw in the first three months.
One of the key issues around the drug treatment court in Toronto that the evaluation will be looking at, and which is critical, is the context in which this court was set up. It is very much modelled on the drug treatment courts that have been developed in the United States. The real impetus behind those courts tended to be the harsh drug laws and mandatory sentences that were accounting for a massive increase in the number of drug offenders who were ending up in prisons in the United States and the costs associated with that.
Some have argued that there is probably a significant incentive in the U.S. for drug treatment court clients to stick with the program, because it is tough.
It is typically nine months long, and in the beginning, the client is expected to make regular appearances before the court and is subjected to regular and, in many cases, random urine tests. They are also expected to attend mandatory treatment and get their lives organized in terms of school, employment, health issues and housing. Therefore, people who are accepted into the program are expected to take a lot of responsibility for their lives and their behaviour, with significant supports being provided.
The Canadian context is different. For example, the sentencing laws are different. Canada does not tend to follow the U.S. model of mandatory sentencing, which in many respects binds the hands of judges.
Also, we have had conditional sentences in Canada since 1997, I believe. Conditional sentences were set up for offenders who were sentenced to a prison term of two years less a day. There are different types of sanctions that may be associated with conditional sentencing, but one of the keys aspects is that the sentence is not served in a jail or an institution.
It is interesting to note that 83 per cent of all drug offenders in nine jurisdictions who were sentenced to prison in 1996 received two years less a day, or less. For offenders who are likely to receive four, six or eight months, and therefore a conditional sentence, there may be less incentive to become involved in the drug treatment court and have to adhere to the rigid guidelines and expectations that are associated with participating in that program.
The evaluation has found that the comparison group is more likely than the experimental group to be younger, unemployed, have an income source from illegal activity, more criminal convictions, have been incarcerated more often and been charged with a new offence since admission to the drug treatment court. In many respects, the comparison group is at much higher risk than the experimental group.
Lower reoffending rates for those receiving the drug treatment court program and related services may be related to their level of risk. We would like to explore further whether it is participation in the program, or lower risk and motivation to change one's life that is accounting for these differences.
The evaluation data that we have to date has told us the following: The drug treatment court in Toronto is able to engage and retain offenders. Those who stay in the program tend to complete it and graduate, and the limited follow- up data that has been collected so far would indicate that they do have lower recidivism rates and reduced drug use.
There is also a reduction in drug use and criminal activity while offenders are in the program. There tend to be lower re-arrest rates for the experimental group compared with the expelled or the comparison group. One of the evaluation challenges over the next couple of years will be to try to identify a better matched group of offenders in order to define the outcomes, impacts and effects of the drug treatment court experience on some of the key outcome measures, which have to do with drug use, criminal activity, re-insertion in a pro-social way into the community, family stability and things of that nature.
I want to speak briefly about Vancouver. As I am sure you have heard, the City of Vancouver faces enormous challenges in responding to serious health and social problems associated with injection drug use, including substance abuse, infectious disease epidemics, high rates of drug overdose, mental illness, crime, poverty and homelessness.
The Vancouver Drug Treatment Court is one of the many responses the province and the city have initiated to respond to the high instance of injection drug use in Vancouver. It uses, as does the Toronto court, an inter-sectoral model. Interestingly, in terms of making comparisons, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is the treatment provider in Toronto, so there is a dedicated team of addiction treatment counsellors, doctors and so forth in one place to work with this client population.
This is not the situation in British Columbia. Treatment providers tend to be more locally based, may be attached to hospitals, and are running their own clinical practices. We will be looking at the impact of using local treatment providers for addicted offenders compared with having a readily available organization.
The court opened its doors in December 2001, so it is about six months old. We are hoping that in the next few months, we will begin to receive some process information related to the implementation of the court, some of the challenges that it has confronted and some of the ways in which it has dealt with them.
Like the Toronto court, it is intended to ensure intensive case management and that the participants are linked to community resources and skills development programs, as needed. This will be a challenge in B.C., where many of these services are being scaled back or even eliminated in the present wave of government budget cuts.
We are also anticipating an experimental design, with random allocation of the comparison group to the court in order to improve the rigour of the evaluation findings.
Senator Banks: I know it is not right to characterize what you are talking about as ``the war on drugs,'' but the statistics cause me to wonder about the effectiveness of all these programs. They seem to be effective for the people who stay in the programs. On the other hand, we have heard from Mr. Michaelson that prosecutions for trafficking and for simple possession are increasing, and overall it seems to me that illicit drug use is going in that direction, notwithstanding all the stuff we are doing, including dealing with it through drug courts, prevention and education.
Are we being efficient? Is it working at all? We hear many arguments from people all over the world that the war on drugs — I know that is not what we do — seems to be utterly failing.
We throw enormous amounts of money at it, but the incidence keeps going up.
Is it true that the best we can say is that all those efforts with respect to prevention, education and the programs under the drug courts are reducing the rate of increase? All the good things, including the money, the programs and the research, do not seem to be having an affect on the general use of drugs, if we are to trust our anecdotal observations. Mr. Michaelson told us that prosecutions are going up. He said that is not because of extra efforts by the police, but because of more widespread use. I am asking you a marked question. Is reducing the rate of increase the best we can hope to do with prevention, education and interdiction?
Ms Begin: The four-pillar approach to attempting to address drugs in Canada, that is, education, prevention, enforcement and harm reduction, seems to cover the waterfront, if you will, on how a society can respond to a drug problem or a social problem. I am talking about educating the young, attempting to ensure that through enforcement, drug traffickers are dealt with by the criminal courts, and responding to the health and other needs of addicts. As to whether this is the right approach or not, as a researcher, I fully support and argue for evidence-based decision making. I think that we are moving more and more in that direction in Canada. We are imposing reporting requirements for money that is spent on social and health issues to determine whether it is meeting its objective, which is to contribute to a safer, healthier Canadian society.
Senator Banks: I know that it is impossible to establish unchallenged, statistical answers to the question of whether those programs are effective. I know that I asked a rhetorical question.
You said that about half of the people are expelled from the programs. Is that because they fall off the wagon?
Ms Begin: The reason for expulsion is failure to comply with the reporting requirements. While drug relapse is not an automatic cause for expulsion from the program, lying to the court is.
Senator Banks: It is a variety of reasons.
Ms Begin: Correct, but with flexibility to allow for mistakes and getting back on track.
Senator Banks: You said a moment ago that measurement of the effectiveness of various programs has to be on the basis of reliable information. Do you think that establishing a national agency or observatory to observe illegal drug trends would be a good idea?
Ms Begin: I do not think I am capable of fully answering that question. I know there is such an agency in France, but I am not familiar with the various components of an observatory. My understanding is that the Canadian Centre On Substance Abuse recently received much-needed funding to meet its mandate. That may be an interesting responsibility, challenge or objective.
Senator Banks: Would you agree that in general, we need better and more information, specifically research, than we presently have?
Ms Begin: Based on my reading of the Auditor General's report, I would say that is the direction in which she was pointing, yes.
Senator Banks: Mr. Michaelson, you mentioned that overall, we spend about $57 million per year for prosecution purposes. That does not include the cost of incarceration or any residual costs, does it?
Mr. Michaelson: That is correct. The $57-million figure is for the Federal Prosecution Service component. It would not include courts' administration costs. It would not include costs incurred by provincial or federal corrections. It would not include legal aid costs. Certainly, it does not include the investigation costs.
Senator Banks: This $57 million per year is only part of the cost of pursuing drug users. The amount set aside for education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation is about $30 million a year. I am not a tree hugger, and I am certainly not a bleeding-heart liberal, although I am a Liberal. Does that make any sense to you?
Mr. Michaelson: I am not in a position to comment.
Senator Banks: It is another rhetorical question. It is not fair. I just wanted to point out that this $57 million is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of our real costs.
Mr. Michaelson: That is true.
Senator Maheu: Ms Begin, in connection with the 50 per cent success rate in the two courts, what types of charges are levied? How far do we go? Is it first-time offenders or recidivists?
Mr. Michaelson: One thing that distinguishes our approach from that of the Americans is that the offender population with whom we are dealing in these drug treatment courts tends to be higher risk. They would not typically be charged with first-time possession of cocaine or heroin. Many of the offenders have had a lengthy involvement with the criminal courts in the past, primarily related to their addictive behaviours. Many of the offenders have been charged with trafficking offences. We do not allow commercial traffickers into the program. It has to be a trafficking offence related to their underlying substance abuse. We tend to deal with a higher-risk population, which is one of the contributing factors to the drop-out rate from the program. We are dealing with a difficult population in many ways. I view the fact that we have so many individuals continuing in the program as an optimistic sign that the drug treatment court is on the right track.
Senator Maheu: What would be the major difference between our two courts and the thousand-odd courts they have in the United States?
Mr. Michaelson: I am not an expert on the U.S. courts. However, I understand that many of them will not take drug traffickers into the program. They limit it to individuals who have been charged with a possession offence.
If you have been charged with a possession offence in the United States, you may well receive a fairly significant custodial disposition. You will go to jail. That typically is not the case in Canada. That is one reason why the populations entering into the drug treatment courses are different.
Some jurisdictions in the United States have broadened their criteria to allow addict-traffickers into their program.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Saint-Denis, in 1982, your department published a document on the role of criminal law. That document states that criminal law must be used as the last bulwark protecting social values where harm to others or to society can be demonstrated.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I remember that document.
The Chairman: Is that philosophy establishing the role of criminal law in Canadian society still valid?
Mr. Saint-Denis: In its broad outlines, absolutely.
The Chairman: Do you believe that cannabis causes that kind of harm to others or to society in general?
Mr. Saint-Denis: We hope that your committee and that of the House of Commons will be able to enlighten us on that point.
Some harm is caused by cannabis use, more particularly to health. In my opinion, that harm is not fully measured and it must be likened, at the very least, to that of tobacco use.
A certain amount of criminal activity surrounds cannabis use. Cannabis, in many cases, must be bought, and people with little money often resort to criminal methods to obtain money.
The Chairman: Crime induced by the notion of prohibition.
Mr. Saint-Denis: No. I'm talking about people who, because they do not have the money, must steal or commit crime in order to obtain it. This problem would exist, I believe, whether cannabis were prohibited or not. If the laws on cannabis were repealed, if it were completely decriminalized or legalized, people would not be able to afford the substance. Those people would therefore resort to criminal means to afford cannabis use. There is thus a certain harm attached to cannabis.
The Chairman: For discussion purposes, can we draw a parallel with alcohol?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes.
The Chairman: We heard a series of presentations on the consequences of alcohol dependence, which are much more serious, pernicious and deleterious. I assume that this harm to others, in the case of alcohol, is even more obvious than in the case of cannabis.
Mr. Saint-Denis: You are correct.
The Chairman: We are trying to obtain a stable measure of this principle of harm to others and damage. We realize that what is valid in one case is not necessarily in another.
The judges of the Supreme Court will have to decide this point and we await their findings with interest. However, we must write a report before the Supreme Court's decision is rendered.
We believe this departmental document is still very valid, and I believe thought and discussion must continue. We are trying to find a way to analyze the role of criminal law and to ascertain the principles that should guide its use. Did the publication of this document trigger thought and discussion in the department?
Mr. Saint-Denis: In 1982, there was an initiative unrelated to the sentencing principles in the document. The purpose of the effort was to minimize the criminal law impact on cannabis possession and use. However, that initiative was not carried out and the matter remained there.
How to treat the offence of cannabis possession and use? That question often comes up at the table, but remains unanswered.
The Chairman: Let's consider it from another angle. Should cannabis possession be criminalized even if we come to the conclusion that criminal law should not apply? It should be taken for granted that harm is caused to others, which requires us to resort to criminal law.
Mr. Saint-Denis: In the case of the treaties, this is a process based on a different assumption. They concern harm to health. Consequently, they propose to criminalize certain activities. However, with regard to harm to society, it is still the case that, in the treaty and on the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, people's health is the primary concern.
Are we obliged to criminalize cannabis possession? The answer is yes. The 1988 convention states that possession must be criminalized — it concerns possession, growing and trafficking. However, it is not necessary to penalize it severely. There is an alternative, for example, such as treatment, rather than imposing prison terms.
This is the obligation we must meet under the 1988 treaty. We have to criminalize, but there are a range of options for handling the problem. We can hand down prison terms or only impose fines.
The Chairman: Which leads me to the underlying question: Won't the Canadian act exceed international requirements — indeed the 1988 convention — precisely in view of those possible alternative measures?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not believe that is the case. Since we have criminalized, we will meet our obligation. The flexibility lies in the way we treat the people who are convicted. The courts are already doing this by handing down suspended sentences or imposing other measures. So the act gives us considerable flexibility in sentencing. We have a system that affords a certain softening of the criminal impact. An improvement is still desirable, but the courts are already headed in this direction.
The Chairman: The Department of Health witnesses who preceded you told us about the somewhat negative reaction of international authorities or agencies which are responsible for implementing these treaties, particularly concerning the medical use of cannabis. The Department of Health people confirmed that those agencies had been duly informed that our courts had interpreted our constitutional law and that's why this type of regulations was implemented. It is purely hypothetical, but possible, that we could face the same situation in the more or less near future when the Supreme Court renders its decisions in the cases before it concerning the recreational use of cannabis.
You, who know the international law on drug control, can you tell us about the situation of our international partners?
Are they informed in advance that a certain judicial change is under way in Canada in this area? I am not just thinking of the Americans.
Mr. St-Denis: A number of our friends in Europe are aware of legal developments in Canada in this area. They also know that we have these regulations on medical use.
We meet with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna once a year. There is an exchange of ideas and an updating of information. The people are certainly aware. There are two quite divergent trends that appear to be developing with regard to cannabis at least. Some countries have begun a process of...
The Chairman: Parallelism!
Mr. St-Denis: It is not just that. Some countries have begun to reduce the legal effects of cannabis possession. I am thinking in particular of certain European countries. There are other countries where there is a tendency toward being harsher, or if they are not harsher, at least they are concerned by these trends they perceive in the West, that is to say in the countries of Western Europe and Canada. This appears to cause some problems for them. The young people of those countries realize what is going on in other countries. They wonder why they are penalized so severely when Spain, Switzerland, England and Canada are headed in the opposite direction. This causes them some quite serious problems. It was one of the questions recently raised in the context of the discussions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. These questions will continue to be raised for some time.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Michaelson, we heard from at least two heads of drug enforcement police organizations in two major cities, Vancouver and Montreal, that simple possession was not of great concern. They believed that it was important, but they did not have the resources, time or even the willingness to bother with it.
I understand from your statement that, in at least two jurisdictions, there is a higher degree of cooperation between the Crown prosecutors and the police organization in laying charges. Is this the first time that you have heard such a statement from a police organization in Montreal or Vancouver? Is it a known fact that there is less preoccupation with simple possession of cannabis in those two jurisdictions? In Vancouver, it was actually possession of all illicit drugs.
Mr. Michaelson: That comes as no surprise to me. When I referred to police charging practices and the variances across the country, certainly the police in major Canadian cities are grappling with a host of issues and problems, of which drug possession is one. They will also have to deal with many more trafficking and importing offences and cannabis cultivation in grow houses in their communities.
In allocating scarce police resources to the issues, their focus will be on the most significant criminal offences taking place in their respective jurisdictions. In Vancouver, where they are dealing with many problems and issues, the police have determined that, in the grand scheme of things, simple possession offences have a relatively low policing priority. They simply could not deal with the volume of occurrences and still focus on the more serious offences. That is not a surprise.
The Chairman: You are quite right. They are not saying it is not important, but rather that they do not have the resources to deal with it.
Mr. Michaelson: You have to make your decision and allocate your resources. In smaller communities, where they do not have problems with drug trafficking and cannabis cultivation on the same scale, then you are likely to see a higher incidence of drug possession charges.
The Chairman: That is why there is such a big difference between Vancouver and Thunder Bay.
Mr. Michaelson: Or you could pick a number of different jurisdictions across the country and see different charging patterns.
The Chairman: From our point of view, it is troubling to see the same law applied differently in different provinces. We could also compare two cities in the same province, such as Toronto and Thunder Bay, and find major differences. It is of concern to Canadians that the law is applied differently in different areas. People have told us that they are quite unhappy about that.
Mr. Michaelson: We share that concern. That is one of the reasons we are being more aggressive in exploring the available alternatives for low-level offences. An individual in one jurisdiction may receive a police caution, whereas in another jurisdiction, the individual is charged and goes to court. That is one reason we want to try to ensure as much fairness and equity as possible in the ultimate outcome when a case comes to us.
[Translation]
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for accepting our invitation.
To finalize our work, the committee's researchers will probably ask you some questions to explore certain parts of your testimony. Please feel free to answer them.
The committee adjourned.