Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs

Issue 8 - Evidence - Morning Session

The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs met today at 9:04 a.m. to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) in the Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I see a quorum. So I now call to order this public hearing of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.

I am very pleased to welcome you to our proceedings today. I want in particular to thank one of our colleagues who, despite the fact that he just lost one of his children, has selflessly decided to join us this morning to pursue his work on the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome those who travelled to be here at our meeting in Ottawa, as well as those who are listening to us on the radio, on television or via the committee's Internet site.

I also would like to introduce the five senators who sit on the committee. First, the Honourable Senator Kenny from Ontario is the Vice-Chairman of the committee; at my extreme left is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta, and Senator Shirley Maheu from Quebec. Senator Terry Stratton from Manitoba also sits on the committee, but could not attend this morning's hearing. My name is Pierre Claude Nolin and I am one of the Quebec Senators. Also with us today are the clerk of the committee and Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon, our research director.

[English]

This committee has received a mandate to study and to report on the actual Canadian policies concerning cannabis in its context; to study the efficiency of those policies, their approach and the means as well as the control used to implement them. In addition to its initial mandate, the committee must examine the official policies adopted by other the countries.

The Canadian international responsibilities with regard to the conventions on illegal drugs to which Canada is a signatory will also be examined. The committee will also study the social and health effects of the Canadian drug policies on cannabis and the potential effects of alternative policies.

[Translation]

Finally, the committee must table its final report by the end of August 2002. To properly meet the mandate we have been given, the committee has developed an action plan based on three major points.

The first is knowledge. In order to meet this challenge, we will hear from an impressive array of experts from Canada and abroad, and from the university, police, legal, medical social and government communities. The hearings will be held mainly in Ottawa, and if necessary, occasionally outside the capital region.

The second challenge we have to meet is sharing this knowledge, and in my view, this is definitely the most noble aspect of our work. The committee wants Canadians throughout the country to be better informed and to share the information we are collecting. Our challenge will be to plan and organize a system to guarantee the accessibility and the proper dissemination of this knowledge. We also want to hear what people think about this information. To this end, we will be holding public hearings in the spring of 2002 in various locations across Canada.

Finally, our third objective is to review in detail the guidelines which should form the basis of the Canadian policy on drugs.

[English]

Before I introduce the distinguished panel at today's hearing, I wish to inform you that the committee maintains an up-to-date Web site. The site is accessible through the parliamentary Web site that can be reached at www.parl.gc.ca. All the committee's proceedings are posted there. It includes the briefs and the appropriate support documentation of our expert witnesses. We also keep up to date more than 150 links to other related sites.

[Translation]

Let me say a few words about the room where the committee is meeting today. This room, known as the Aboriginal Peoples' room was set up in 1996 by the Senate to pay tribute to the first peoples of North America, who are still actively involved in the development of our country. Four of our Senate colleagues are proud and worthy representatives of these peoples.

Today we are going to examine two important aspects of the illegal drugs control process. First, we'll look at the federal control programs, and then we will try to better understand the links between terrorism and illegal drugs.

[English]

This morning we welcome first a panel from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After your presentation today, as a follow-up, we will write to you, if you agree to complement this hearing with written questions and you can provide us with the answers. We will post that material on the web site.

The floor is yours, Mr. Lesser.

Mr. R.G. Lesser, Chief Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, honourable senators, for this opportunity. I will first highlight the material provided for you at the beginning of last week covering the Canadian drug situation for the year 2000.

The RCMPs role and mandate is to enforce laws, prevent crime, and maintain peace, order and security. Within the different pillars of Canada's drug strategy, we have a role and mandate in four primary areas. They are: prevention programming, enforcement and control, national coordination, and international cooperation.

I will give you some figures from the United Nations International Drug Control Program to offer you a quick snapshot of the global illicit drug trends between the years 1999-2000. This is their latest report from 2000.

In the year 2000 70 per cent of the global opium production came from Afghanistan and 23 per cent from Myanmar. Myanmar is the main heroin provider to Canada. The global cultivation of coca bush and the potential production of cocaine remained more or less stable in the year 2000, although there was a shift from production in Bolivia and Peru to Colombia. This shift was due primarily to the law enforcement efforts in Bolivia and Peru.

Global cannabis cultivation indicates a 35 per cent increase for herbal cannabis in 1999 that suggests continued widespread production and trafficking of the drug.

The 1999 United Nations seizure figures show that one-third of all drugs seized was seized in North America and one-quarter in Western Europe. In 1999 the interception rates show that 39 per cent of the drugs intercepted were cocaine and 15 per cent were opiates, primarily heroin. Seizures of ATS, amphetamine-type stimulants, usually ecstasy, more than doubled in 1999 from a year earlier. Cannabis herb rose by one-third and opiates by 14 per cent. Cocaine seizures fell by 6 per cent.

The 10-year global trend from 1990-99 shows that the use of ATS or amphetamine-type stimulants is growing at an annual average rate of 30 per cent compared to only 6 per cent for cannabis herb, 5 per cent for heroin, 4 per cent for cannabis resin, and 3 per cent for cocaine. Very clearly, ATS is an up and coming, drug.

The United Nations International Drug Control Program estimates that 180 million people consume illicit drugs. That worldwide figure includes 144 million for cannabis, 29 million for ATS, 14 million for cocaine and nine million for heroin. The strongest increases recorded in 1999 were for cannabis and amphetamine-type stimulant consumption.

I would like to pick up on the connections between organized crime, drug trafficking and terrorism. I have taken testimony that was heard before the U.S. House Committee on Crime in December 2000. I looked specifically for a testimony that was given before September 11.

In the testimony the IRA and the Real IRA are reputed to be allies with the Middle Eastern narcotics industry. The Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, is reputed to tax narcotic traffickers. According to the French authorities, they smuggle 8 per cent of the heroin into Paris. Hashish, which is prominent in Eastern Canada, is controlled by and large by Hezbollah out of the Bekka Valley. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, tax traffickers and engage in large-scale cocaine processing. Colombia is Canada's main supplier of cocaine.

We have heard many times in the last while that the Taliban tax all aspects of the Afghani drug trade. They tax the opium harvest at an estimated 12 per cent. They tax heroin labs at $70 per kilogram of production. They give transporters a permit for $250 per kilo to transport within Afghanistan. This earns the Taliban approximately U.S. $75 million a year.

In Canada the drug trade continues to provide the major source of revenue for most organized crime groups and criminal organizations within Canada. Ecstasy or MDMA has joined cannabis, heroin and cocaine as a major drug commodity that reaps huge benefits for Canadian drug traffickers. The Canadian illicit drug market has the potential to generate proceeds in excess of $4 billion at the wholesale level and up to $18 billion at the street level.

Organized crime groups are primarily responsible for the trafficking of narcotics and other drugs in Canada. Asian-based organized crime groups continue to monopolize heroin importation into Canada. This activity occurs primarily on the West Coast. They have also increased trafficking activities in both cocaine and marijuana. Most notably, they have diversified and are now involved in the trade of ecstasy. This provides an excellent example that organized crime will go wherever they can to make money. They no longer focus on any particular illegal drug commodity or, for that matter, any drug commodity at all.

Italian-based organized crime groups remain active and are involved in high-level importation and distribution activities. They participate in joint ventures with other organized crime groups to move into Canada and provide assistance for the laundering of drug proceeds. Colombian-based traffickers continue to control much of the cocaine trade in Eastern and Central Canada. Outlaw motorcycle gangs, most notably the Hell's Angels, remain involved in the importation and distribution of cannabis, cocaine and synthetic drugs of which ecstasy is the prime example.

There are also independent Canadian and foreign entrepreneurs who are important suppliers within the Canadian chain. At the international level, Israeli-based and Dutch-based groups are responsible for most of the ecstasy imported into Canada from Europe.

Our estimates of what Canadians consume or smuggle into Canada yearly are: approximately 100 tonnes of hashish, 15 tonnes of cocaine and six tonnes of liquid hash. Production of domestic marijuana is a staggering 800 tonnes. Heroin consumption is estimated between one and two tonnes.

With the background of the international supply and consumption rates, I will go over two student surveys. The surveys are from Manitoba and Ontario. They show very disturbing trends in youth drug use.

In the Addiction Foundation of Manitoba October 2001 study, over one-half the students considered alcohol and drug use to be a major problem at their school. Nine per cent experienced moderate or serious problems as a result of family members using drugs. Eighty-one per cent drank alcohol in the past year. Forty per cent reported using drugs in the past year.

Of those using drugs, 58 per cent do so in cars and 48 per cent during regular school hours. I believe it is a misconception that people only toke up on weekends, in private homes. As a matter of fact, people are smoking in cars and mixing it with alcohol and that sometimes leads to deadly results. The students are smoking before, during and after class. This is having a direct effect on their ability to learn.

The Manitoba survey also shows that most students do not condone drinking and driving. However, they are less concerned about using cannabis and driving. The report findings point for a need for expansion of prevention and intervention programs. I will come back to that shortly. They reports also point to a need to more effectively educate the students about the risks involved in impaired driving, regardless of the substance used. According to the study the risk of being involved in an accident while high is comparable to that of being drunk.

The Ontario students survey is equally disconcerting. A dramatic upswing is noted in the use of all drugs since 1993. Heavy drinking has increased from 18 per cent to 28 per cent. Use of cigarettes has almost doubled to 28 per cent. The use of cannabis has more than doubled to 29 per cent. One-third of students report they have used cannabis. Ecstasy has had a phenomenal increase from 0.6 per cent to 5 per cent. Hallucinogen use has gone from 3 per cent to 14 per cent. Very disturbing are those who reported using four or more drugs; a figure that has risen from 8 per cent to a staggering 27 per cent.

Unfortunately, the only statistic that has decreased is the one that records the students who do not use drugs. That figure has decreased from 36 per cent to 27 per cent. From almost one-third of the students not using drugs, we now have almost a one-quarter of the students not using drugs. We are clearly in a time where young people are turning to drugs as an answer to life's problems.

The Ontario student survey from 1997-99 included the school grades of seven, nine, 11 and 13. Increased statistics show that those reporting uncontrolled use of cannabis has risen from 6 per cent to 11 per cent.

Students who have made the attempt to reduce the use of cannabis have increased from 31 per cent to 43 per cent. On the negative side, that does not report the amount of cannabis use. Equally problematic is that of those students who report three problem use indicators the increase has been from 2 per cent to 7 per cent.

Why is this happening? According to the researchers, there are three main reasons. First is that the students have a weakening perception of risk of harm. In other words, students over the last decade do not think drugs are as harmful as students did a decade ago. Those that see a great risk in trying cocaine decreased from 43 per cent to 34 per cent. Those that see a great risk in regular use of marijuana, not an occasional toke, decreased from 73 per cent to only 52 per cent.

The second reason is a weakening moral disapproval of drug use. That is seen as a cause for the phenomenal increase in drug use among students. Those disapproving of cocaine use have decreased from 55 per cent to 42 per cent. Those disproving of regular marijuana use has decreased from 61 per cent to 43 per cent.

The third reason for the increase is increased perceived availability. In other words, the researchers are saying that students find drugs more readily available and therefore, consume more. Those students who have reported cocaine easy to obtain have shown an increased usage from 14 per cent to 20 per cent. Similarly, those students who have reported cannabis easy to obtain have had an increased use from 29 per cent to 53 per cent.

This indicates that there are no messages out there about the harms of drugs, regardless of the particular substance or the legal status of those particular drugs. There are no messages out there at all.

What is the RCMP's approach to drug issues? Our approach is that the best response to drug abuse lies in the potential of awareness prevention activities. I will highlight the potential of awareness activities because, in our view, there are not many awareness and prevention activities across Canada.

Only in an environment of reduced supply will prevention activities succeed. We have seen from the Ontario study that the more supply, the more likely people will use substances.

To the RCMP, those who import, produce and traffic are an enforcement and criminal justice issue. Those addicted to illegal substances are primarily a health issue. The illegal status of a substance is only a hindrance to criminal organizations. Profit is the motivating factor. There are many examples of organized crime making huge profits from other illegal substances.

How do we choose what to work on? This next slide is intended to simplify the understanding of that process. I will try to walk you through a little bit of that.

If you look at the bottom left corner, you will see that there is a variety of different commodity groups; drugs, customs and excise, proceeds of crime, general duty and policing. Those are specialized unit that work in those areas.

You will notice underneath Projects A, B and C that we have changed the way in which we work. We do project oriented investigations. In other words, we tackle organized crime, which no longer specializes, as you heard in the beginning of my presentation, in one particular drug or commodity. Organized crime groups will traffic in whatever drug is out there. They will traffic in illegal immigrants or in credit-cashed frauds. As a result, our response has been to have multi-disciplinary groups in order to have the expertise to be able to deal with all those illicit commodities.

Those units develop and create information. That information is fed through our intelligence process to identify our main threats across the country. Upper management, criminal operations officers, and those that command divisions throughout Canada then assess those main threats and the threat assessments. National priorities are based on the threat assessment.

Those same people look at the national priorities, and I will mention those for this year later, and they pick particular groups within those national priorities. We target them specifically.

If a national priority is deemed to be outlaw motorcycle gangs then we may look at the Hell's Angels particularly, and perhaps a particular chapter specifically. In that way, we hone and focus our priorities. As you see there, there is a feedback loop of collecting information and feeding it back through the intelligence system. Through that process, we reassess, modify and retarget, as necessary.

Our current strategic national priorities are outlaw motorcycle gangs, Asian- based organized crime, Italian-based organized crime, and Eastern European-based organized crime. These are national targets; they are not drug targets. These are the RCMP national targets. These groups are involved in all commodity areas. However, you will notice that all four groups are involved in illicit drugs.

How many people does the RCMP have doing drug enforcement work? When I hear reporting or read articles talking about the war on drugs, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. If you take a look at the chart, you will see that our resources have not changed very much since 1987. As a matter of fact, our effective resource capacity is less this year than it was in 1987.

Our funding is still based on old funding levels that do not represent the millions of dollars it now costs to take a case to court. We are spending millions of dollars not only taking the cases to court, but millions of dollars in disclosure expenses once we get to court.

I would suggest that there is not a war on crimes in Canada. We rarely put up a skirmish, never mind a war.

What is the amount of money federally that the RCMP is spending? The answer is: approximately $72 million a year. It did not make it, and I apologize, into the French version but in the English version you will see "supply reduction."

We looked at the work with the Auditor General and came up with a figure of $164 million as the total expenditure. About 9 per cent of the work of the proceeds of crime unit is related to drugs and following up drug investigations. Customs and excise and other federal units become involved in drugs, as well.

We spend $4 million a year on our demand reduction federally. I will come back to our demand reduction program in a minute.

The next slide gives you an indication of where our resources are across Canada. The numbers that are in parenthesis are the number of drug awareness national coordinators out there that deal with prevention coordination programs. Not surprisingly we have most of our resources in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

We picked the period of 1997-2000 to report the amount of drugs seized to provide some trend analysis. You will notice that heroin seizures have increased fairly significantly over the last four years. Cocaine seizures are by and large level. The amount of LSD seizures has significantly dropped from about 25,000 hits in 1997 to a little over 2,000 hits in the last year. However, LSD use has been supplanted by ecstasy use. Just four years ago we seized about 10,000 ecstasy units; last year we seized over 2 million ecstasy tablets.

When I use the word we, I am referring to the combined figures of the RCMP Canada Customs and Revenue, Sureté du Quebec, the Montreal urban police, the Ontario Provincial Police and Toronto police services.

Marijuana seizures have decreased from about 50,000 kilograms four years ago to 21,000 kilograms in 2001. That figure must be considered with the doubling of the seizure of marijuana plants over the last four years. Over one million marijuana plants were seized in 2001. This figure reflects the RCMP's proactive activity in targeting the growth operations as opposed to waiting for people with grass to sell.

Hash activity has gone up and down over the last four years, but that is primarily due to the seizures. Hash is seized usually in containers and in multi-ton shipments. In two or three seizures alone a fair number of tons can be seized. In the years that we do not have the seizures there is a significant drop in amounts. It does not relate to how much is out there, it merely relates to the investigations.

Many of these investigations will take two years, three years or four years to come to fruition. What we work on this year will probably not yield results for another three years or four years. Given the criminal organization act that exists now, criminal organizations must have been involved in criminal activity for a period of five years or more. Therefore, investigations are at least five years long for us to be able to go ahead with placing those charges.

Liquid hash has gone up and down. It is primarily from Jamaica, but it has been virtually steady over the last four years.

We will now turning to persons that have been charged by the RCMP. These charges were laid by our contract uniform people working at municipal detachments such as Burnaby and Surrey British Columbia, and all the provinces except Quebec and Ontario. The bottom line is that the heroin charges total, which is primarily trafficking, has stayed pretty much stable over the last decade. Cocaine-related charges, although primarily trafficking charges, has seen some increase in the year 2000, but by and large, the total is fairly stable. Charges related to cannabis, for which we chose marijuana possession specifically because of the interest of the committee, have risen fairly steadily between the years 1990-92. There was an interesting drop in 1998 and then the number rose to almost normal levels in the year 2000. I make this point because I know many people are suggesting that local police and the RCMP target simple marijuana possession cases. When we took a look at people charged with marijuana possession cases, we found that only 180 occurred across the country last year. Those charges tended to arise from growing operations of about 200 plants or fewer, where the charge remained simple possession; from trafficking that was dropped to simple possession; and from Canada Customs for their seizure of marijuana from people coming across the border. Those people could not be charged with importation, so they were charged with simple possession. Federally, we can count about 180 charges.

The next slide concerns the RCMP Drug Awareness Service. We have 31 full-time equivalent positions 14 of which were provided to us by the Canada Drug Strategy in the late 1980s. We have taken the rest from enforcement positions because of the strong belief we have in the importance of prevention activities.

We have a budget of $4 million. That does not include many of the activities done by uniform personnel such as requests from schools, community groups and sports groups. Those activities include over 10,000 presentations annually. We are not counting those figures and person hours in the budget of $4 million. The $4 million then, is primarily for the 31 full-time employees that we have out there.

We had an excellent Canadian program developed in Nova Scotia in conjunction with the Nova Scotia Addictions Foundation known as PACE, the Police Assisted Community Education. We, along with a pharmacist, a doctor, a nurse and some athletes were among the people that went to schools to talk to the students about peer pressure, why some students feel compelled to use drugs, about stealing and different moral ethics, and other subjects relating to drug use.

Unfortunately, because of the budget cuts, the programs were cut. The money for evaluations, for increasing the program, or for improving the program no longer existed. We were unable to continue to fund Canadian programs, and to the credit of the RCMP and its members across the divisions, they turned to DARE, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, from the United States. It was a pre-made, off-the-shelf program.

Our budget still does not permit us to develop Canadian programs or to do evaluations. Unfortunately and embarrassing is that of the money that has gone to teaching Canadian police officers to instruct, a total of $750,000 has been paid for by the United States. The Canadian government has not funded any DARE training.

On the positive side, we still have the Aboriginal Shield Program, which is an offshoot from the PACE program. This program has been set up for the Aboriginal communities. We have programs that, thanks to sponsorship from other areas, focus on drugs and sports with athletes. I am sure you are aware of the intravenous drug use issues across Canada. It is important to know that 10,000 to 20,000 intravenous drug users are steroid user: There are students that are shooting up either to compete in athletics or to look good.

There is a program called "Two-way Street; Parents, Kids and Drugs" that enables us to pass on to the parents some of the same messages that we have been passing to the kids. We realize that whether you have one hour with the kids or 17 presentations with the children, if those children return home to a substance-abuse family or a family where there is violence the program will have little effect.

We also target the parents in the workplace with a program called "Drugs in the Workplace." These encourage employee assistance programs and pass on to the parents the same message we have been passing on to the kids.

What does the RCMP do at the national level within their community? The RCMP is a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Abuse Committee. We are also involved with Health and Enforcement in Partnership, HEP, which operates across Canada in both a national and a provincial capacity. Organizations and groups from health and enforcement professionals get together to take a look at shared problems and to try to find some shared solutions. We work closely with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. We are also involved in the Canadian Epidemiology Network on Drug Use, CENDU, which takes a look at 14 different sites across Canada to examine drug admissions into hospitals and drug use trends across the country. That, unfortunately, is very poorly funded, if at all, and by and large people spend their evenings and weekends working on those types of studies.

We have been involved in the medicinal marijuana consultations. We are on the federal-provincial-territorial committee on injection drug use, and we are on past groups to look at the feasibility of establishing a supervised injection site research project in Canada. The RCMP is involved in a variety of different programs that are not just enforcement based.

I will now highlight two years of resolutions developed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The RCMP is a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and we very strongly support these resolutions.

In 1999, we called upon the governments to action through Canada's Drug Strategy. We demanded reduction initiative education programs and anti-organized crime initiatives. We realized the need to establish a champion to lead Canada's Drug Strategy and that this could be achieved through research and the development of legislation to support drug impairment detection. We strove for the establishment of alternative justice measures for summary conviction cannabis possession cases.

In the year 2000, the CACP resolutions called upon governments to position Canada's Drug Strategy as a national imperative; to demonstrate federal leadership by appointing a champion to lead Canada's Drug Strategy; and to enact legislation to support the development of capabilities to determine the levels of impairment by drugs.

In closing I refer to a letter to the editor that was included in the Ottawa Citizen a number of months ago. A young woman named Jessica Bath said she would never forget the tragic death of Stan Thompson, on whom she had a crush in elementary school.

Stan Thompson was 18 when he and four other teenagers from Kanata were killed in a horrific car accident near Perth that summer day. A youth was found responsible for the fatal accident and served eight months of a 12-month sentence. Cannabis and alcohol-impaired driving was the cause.

Jessica, in her letter to the Ottawa Citizen, has essentially written a victim impact statement about how the death of Stan has affected her life. She went on to say that life goes on.

The year following Stan's death, his father, Greg Thompson, went to local high schools to talk about the tragedy. He spoke to students about what went wrong and how the tragedy could have been prevented. He told us the story and he told us what he lives with every day.

His message was that driving a vehicle and smoking marijuana does and will affect driving abilities. He pleaded with the kids not to do it. Jessica went to Stan's dad after his presentation and with tears in her eyes and a shaky voice she told him that she had known his son. What do you say to a father who has lost his son?

Cannabis is not a benign substance. There is very little in the way of research that allows anyone to determine levels of impairment related to cannabis and driving ability, much less the levels of impairment related to cannabis and alcohol and driving ability. We have seen in the Manitoba survey, over one-half of the kids that are using cannabis do so in cars and during school hours.

There is no technical or scientific ability to test for cannabis impairment. We do not have the technology, scientific data or the research. We do not have the proper legislation.

Studies done in British Columbia indicate that 12 per cent to 14 per cent of the drivers involved fatal motor vehicle accidents had cannabis in their systems. The Government of Quebec and the insurance board in Quebec are presently doing road surveys where people are voluntarily submitting to urine or blood tests. The findings in these tests are that between 12 per cent and 14 per cent of those drivers has cannabis in their system while driving. We can see from the student studies that cannabis being used at a high rate.

There are no messages out there about the dangers of using any drug. There are no messages out there to even suggest that heroin and cocaine may not contribute to a healthy lifestyle. There have not been any messages out there. It is not really surprising that kids perceive that more people accept drug use as an alternative lifestyle, and that people accept that drugs are less harmful than they had previously believed. The only message, unfortunately, is from those who are seeking to liberalize drugs. This group often without does not take a serious look at consequences of doing that.

Senator Kenny: Welcome, Chief Superintendent. It is good to have you here this morning. We appreciated receiving the information you sent us ahead of time. You had a very interesting presentation for us.

During the course of your presentation, you made reference to the American situation, and you referred to the War on Drugs, as they call it down there. Do you believe that you are involved in a war on drugs here in Canada?

Mr. Lesser: It has never been an official government policy. We do not have the resources to mount a war. When I started in drug enforcement in the early 1970s we went to schools to do prevention programs. It has always been our view that we need a mixture of programs. For instance, in Vancouver they have the four pillars of prevention: enforcement, control, treatment, and then harm reduction. It is that combination of programs that will have the best chance of giving our children a chance at a healthy lifestyle. Enforcement alone has never been seen as an adequate answer to the problem.

Senator Kenny: How would you characterize the differences between the Canadian and American approaches?

Mr. Lesser: The Americans, up until recently, have been much more enforcement oriented. I cannot speak on behalf of the American government, but it seems to be an arm of their foreign policy as well, especially with their work in South America. That has not been Canada's approach. Our whole approach to issues, drugs and others, has been very similar, with more of a human rights type approach.

Senator Kenny: Are you comfortable with this approach?

Mr. Lesser: If the approach was balanced and "actioned" and a priority that included prevention, yes, I would be.

Senator Kenny: I did not understand that answer. Perhaps you could go through it again.

Mr. Lesser: I do not believe that a strong emphasis on enforcement is the answer. I hesitate to use the word balance because that would suggest that there are two ways to combat this problem. If you are looking at the four-pillar program that I mentioned is used in Vancouver we must realize that there are four parts to our problem.

In Canada, the national, provincial and local levels need to be involved in all four of those levels. We need the police, health department, and the departments of education all to be on the same side. We need to have strong national substance abuse programs.

Regardless of the legal standing of any particular substance, substances are dangerous as they are, and there are ramifications for the people that use them. In our view, there is not a funded national prevention program out there. If we added a national prevention program to the components that exist in Canada, I would then be very supportive of Canada's position.

Senator Kenny: I understand. I looked at some of the numbers you gave us. The top end of the user population is 30,000. Is that correct, sir?

Mr. Lesser: Top end?

Senator Kenny:The user per population is between 25,000 and 30,000, so the top end is, you estimate, 30,000 drug users in Canada?

Mr. Lesser: I do not believe I said that.

Senator Kenny: What is the number, then?

Mr. Lesser: Total drug users in Canada would be a guess. I know there are estimated to be 125,000 intravenous drug users alone. The number of cannabis users is 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the youth population. I am not too sure where that figure came from.

Senator Kenny: It came from Canada's heroin user population, estimated at between 25, 000 and 30,000.

Mr. Lesser:Yes, that is heroin users only.

Senator Kenny: And the total population of drug users? I am looking at the $18 billion figure. I am trying to divide the number of users into that $18 billion. It seems like an extraordinary number, no matter how many users there are.

Mr. Lesser: That is because it does not just include the price you pay for the drugs. It includes the cost of break and enters into your home, the theft of different things, the assaults and the health-related costs that are involved. That figure does not represent just what people would actually pay, one person to a dealer to buy drugs, but it talks about the entire cost of the drug industry that is tied to pretty well every part of the fabric of our lives.

Senator Kenny: This leads me to your comment on organized crime. To paraphrase you, I think you said organized crime goes where the money goes?

Mr. Lesser: That is right.

Senator Kenny: What can we do to take the profit out of the drug business?

Mr. Lesser: I do not think you can. How can you take the profit out of fraudulent debit cards or stock market fraud? There is an education process in there for the population at large. There are prevention steps we can take to reduce that. There are enforcement initiatives. There are initiatives to deal with those that are truly addicted and to help them along so they do not have to commit crimes to get medical assistance. Alcohol has been around for a long time, and we are still seeing organized crime making huge profits over illicit alcohol and tobacco.

Senator Kenny: Why do they do that?It does not cost very much to produce a litre of alcohol.

Mr. Lesser: No, it does not, but about 40 per cent or 50 per cent of that is tax.

Senator Kenny: More than that.

Mr. Lesser:You could reduce the price by that amount.In Quebec, illegal alcohol was produced that was as good as any Seagram's product.

There is less smuggling between the United States and Canada now that some of the taxes have gone down, and since enforcement efforts have changed. I am not a criminology expert, but it seems to me that people would rather make pennies illegally than put their time and effort into doing very similar things legally.

Senator Kenny: If a competitor came on the market and provided marijuana at cost, we would not see organized crime involved, would we?

Mr. Lesser: It depends what the cost is. If Canada took over the growing and supplying of the drug the cost would be quite high. The standard of the drug would have to be maintained and in order to do that people would have to be paid government wages to grow it and to inspect it and to cut it up into nice little cigarettes. Then the employees in the transportation and delivery system would also have to be paid union wages. The Hell's Angels do not pay union wages and Colombia does not worry about the producing farmer.

Senator Kenny: But they do a lot better, do they not?

Mr. Lesser: They give you a better product.

Senator Kenny: No, their return is better.

Mr. Lesser: Everything is better. They do not have the same regulations that the rest of us would as a private enterprise or as a government.

Senator Kenny: But they have much higher profit margins. If I was following through in your sequence, if everyone involved with it got government wages, there are a lot of government folks in this room who do not make what a drug dealer makes.

Mr. Lesser: At the top end of the spectrum perhaps the drug dealer makes more money, but at the lower end, no they do not.

In the lower mainland of British Columbia Vancouver city police estimate that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 growing operations. There are Vietnamese families that are pressured and threatened into growing those crops in their homes at no cost. In that way the big supplier avoids the cultivation costs.

In Quebec, farmers' fields are being used for growing marijuana outdoors, and often the farmer is threatened. The land is free. All the grower has to do is pay for the seed, and it grows, and then they look after some cultivation and distribution costs. I do not think government could ever provide this substance at the same price as organized crime can provide it.

Senator Kenny: You do not think it is a worthwhile route to try and take the profit motive out of drug distribution?

Mr. Lesser: That is one of the two, and that would be the prime one. They are there for the money and they will go wherever they can make money. They are making a large amount of money selling drugs or trafficking in drugs. If you take that away, they will probably turn to other things.

Senator Kenny: How would you suggest we go about taking the profit motive out of drugs?

Mr. Lesser: We are dealing with the profit motive issue through the laws. The law exists that allows the proceeds of a crime to be seized. The more you seize the less incentive there is for people to get involved in crime in the first place.

There is also the issue of supply and demand. If there no demand exists, there would be no need for production in a particular country.

In the case of cocaine, we also need to have a strong prevention program. If there is a demand there are people who will answer that demand. Therefore, we have to go at both fronts to take away the profit.

I personally have little faith in some of the people who we attempt to rehabilitate. Our view is to be able to dismantle or disrupt crime. Many times we are only able to disgruntle organize crime groups. We need to put them on ice for a period of time to be able to disrupt organized crime groups. We need to be able to have people put away for extended periods of time to stop the effectiveness of organized crime groups. When people are incarcerated we take away their infrastructure. At the same time we have to work on prevention and on taking away the proceeds from the criminals.

Senator Maheu: Can we finalize by saying that we will never undersell the criminal trafficker except possibly if go after the proceeds of the crime? Is that basically what you were saying?

Mr. Lesser: It would be pretty difficult to be able to do it cheaper than what organized crime can do it for.

Senator Maheu: I have noticed, and have found several people approaching me lately and saying that, in my age level and their age level, we were not involved in the drug phenomenon in the 1970s. Many of them tried hash, continue to use it, and see absolutely no reason for Canada not to legalize hash. Some of their children are using, of course, and this is part of the reason for them feeling that way.

How would you suggest that someone respond to a parent who feels that way? I would think it might not be the majority of our population, but there are many parents and young people out there who feel that way. How would you respond to this phenomenon?

Mr. Lesser: Our response, by and large, has been the need for research. If we play with the devil we should know the devil well. If we are to make any changes in different control mechanisms for different substances, we should have a good understanding of what those substances could do, both in the short-term and long- term. I do not think we are at that stage.

We have been following this committee and the committee of the House with great interest. We find much of the evidence less than reassuring. One researcher had indicated publicly, after appearing before this committee, that he could provide 50 examples of studies that showed there is no long-term or short-term effect. They will also provide 50 studies where there were long-term and short-term effects.

In retrospect, we need to take a look at where we are with tobacco. I am not suggesting we change the regulation, it is far too late for that, but had we known that tobacco would lead to 45,000 tobacco-related deaths a year what kind of controls would we have put in place? We certainly have learned more about tobacco in the last decade than we knew before. I do not think we spend much time right now studying cannabis, or studying any of the drug issues. I would ask those parents what they really know about the drugs.

Anecdotally, what we heard and knew in the 1960s and 1970s is that people used drugs to expand the mind for a peaceful existence. Now many kids are using drugs to escape reality. It is a means to escape the pressures of life. Will our legacy be a drug-dependent youth? Those are some of the questions we need to ask. Why do people want to get high on cannabis?

Senator Maheu: I also think that some parents have had their children arrested and taken in for simple possession. Sometimes they have not ended up with a criminal record. On the other hand, it is perturbing to have a child taken in for questioning and reprimanded for possession. Do you really think that talking about not having done enough studies would affect the way these parents feel, the way young people feel, if they are convinced there is no danger to smoking hash?

Mr. Lesser: That points to the lack of education out there and on the state of the research that exists right now. Also, we should perhaps ask the parents what they told their kids about using drugs, what they told their kids about healthy lifestyle choices. We have to find out what messages the parents are giving their kids. Do their children have any kind of holistic prevention programs in the school? Is it correct to simply say that because many people are using it they really are not sure exactly what they are using? My mother used to ask me if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you jump off with them? I think it is much that same thing. If everyone smoked pot, would you smoke pot as well? Many people are not getting the message that perhaps it is not a good choice to smoke pot.

I do not believe any parent would be happy if their kid was picked up for shoplifting. Does that mean we will legalize shoplifting? It is equally traumatic. Again, perhaps the messages for the parents are not there. I think there are many issues when we look at our lifestyle choices generally, and how we are teaching people to deal with issues.

Since September 11 there has been a big change in the amount of violence that is shown in movies and on TV. It used to be acceptable to drink and drive in the 1980s and 1990s, and there has been a big social change in that. At one time people did not wear seatbelts. Again, there has been education in that area and social change because we now know the dangers. I do not think there are many messages out there about the dangers, regardless of its legal or illegal status.

Senator Banks: I absolutely agree with you that more research is needed to study the harmful effects or lack of them on cannabis in particular. That would be useful to everyone because we do not know. We do know if you smoke anything it is bad for you. Smoking marijuana is likely to have a worse physiological affect on your lungs than smoking tobacco because the tar content is greater.

I would like to ask you about one of the charts you have, the one entitled "Persons Charged by RCMP Only." Do I understand correctly that the numbers going up the left-hand side of the page are numbers of persons charged?

Mr. Lesser: Yes.

Senator Banks: It seems that there are approximately 5,000 persons charged by the RCMP for cannabis possession. You said that we have 150 or something, or did I misunderstand you?

Mr. Lesser: There are two different figures. The RCMP chart includes those officers who are fulfilling municipal contracts; the officers who are doing provincial contracts in Alberta and those officers who are in federal positions. There are approximately 4,600 possession charges a year laid by the RCMP.

Senator Banks: What was the 150 number you used?

Mr. Lesser: The figure was 180 and that applies to our federal employees only. Those units are totally dedicated to drug enforcement and are working on organized crime and project-oriented cases. They are responsible for only 180 cannabis possession charges in 2000.

Senator Banks:I think most people have the perception that while prohibition of liquor was in place in the United States, organized crime profited greatly and that on the day prohibition ended so did its ability to provide revenue to organized crime. Did it not?

Mr. Lesser: Yes, I imagine so, but organized crime just flips to another activity from which it can make money.

Senator Banks: Of course, but our emphasis, although fairly broad in respect of drugs, is currently on cannabis.

Am I correct that the proceeds derived by organized crime from liquor in Canada are substantially less than those derived by organized crime from cannabis trafficking?

Mr. Lesser: That is correct.

Senator Banks: We talk about "users," which is a rather harsh word. If you consider alcohol to be a drug, then I am a drug user. You may have a bar in your house, or you may consume a bottle of wine occasionally. If so, that makes you a drug user.

There are many famous and distinguished people in our society who were and are consistent users of marijuana. These people do not get pinched for speeding. Not very many drivers impaired by marijuana alone get pinched for speeding. In fact, if they were to get pinched, it would be for driving six miles an hour on a freeway.

I was delighted to hear you say that you do not argue that enforcement alone is the answer. I was also delighted to hear you say that you would avidly support the four-pillar approach that has been developed in Vancouver.

I worry about the statistical argument that there are 44 million cannabis users. There may be, but most of those users do not break into drugstores or mug people to support their habit. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Lesser: At the very end-user level that is probably correct, but between the producer and that level there are untold numbers of crimes, violent and otherwise that are involved in the process.

Senator Banks: Committed by the people supplying the drugs?

Mr. Lesser: Yes.

Senator Banks: I am not arguing for the legalization or decriminalization of cannabis, but it is hard for me to believe that the cost of marijuana on the street would be as great or greater if it were produced under controlled legal circumstances. I will use tobacco as a comparison. It is sold under controlled legal circumstances. I certainly cannot buy 20 cannabis cigarettes for $5.65.It is cheap, but it is not that cheap.

I have a hard time believing that if the extent of its criminalization were reduced, if it were produced and sold legally and therefore inspected and sold legally, it would cost the consumer more than it presently does.

As you have said, like water, it flows to the lowest level. If we removed that lowest level in respect of cannabis would that not remove a huge source of income for criminals dealing with that substance?

Mr. Lesser: No, and I do not know whether people would want to change a law simply in an attempt to defeat organized crime.

Senator Banks: I am not suggesting that. I am not using that as an argument for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. However, if that were to happen, would it not remove a substantial source of income for the Hell's Angels?

Mr. Lesser: It would depend on the price. I do not follow the logic that if the control mechanisms were reduced, the government would somehow magically have more control. With the current fairly stringent laws, it is totally out of control.

Senator Banks: In this country we know everything that goes into the manufacture of tobacco. We know every element of the curing and processing of tobacco here, and cigarettes for which that information is not available cannot be imported into this country.

We do not have that control over marijuana. With marijuana, as with tobacco, companies could increase or decrease the amount of addictive substance. However, worse things can be put into marijuana cigarettes, which is one of the arguments for maintaining marijuana possession as a crime.

If marijuana were produced legally, there would be government controls over the process by which leaves are turned into consumable tobacco on the street level, which does not now exist. Might that not be the case?

Mr. Lesser: It would depend on what the government could sell it for and whether organized crime could sell for less, or could pressure people into buying it. There are examples of people being pressured to buy legitimate goods at higher prices than they would otherwise have to. It depends on how organized crime reacts and on the price.

It is also interesting to see the faith that some people have in tobacco companies. I believe that the Canadian government is suing some Canadian tobacco companies for evading taxes. There are suggestions that tobacco companies target young people. There are also suggestions that they add more addictive substances to cause people to become addicted to tobacco.

Senator Banks: They say that they do not do that any more.

Mr. Lesser: I am comforted by that, sir.

I do not think that turning it over to private industry or to the government to control will result in a competitive market. It would depend on the prices and on what controls are in place. If organized criminals can sell something cheaper, or force people to buy something else, they will.

Senator Banks: You said that there is not as much fear, loathing or concern on the part of the public about the use of certain drugs. I think you would agree that marijuana has come to be regarded as less harmful than once was thought. When the film Reefer Madness came out, marijuana was going to be the bugaboo that would overthrow society. It has not yet.

Do you think there is any chance that perception is true? That is to say, that it is relatively harmless, that it is even demonstrably not addictive, and that its health and social effects are less onerous and awful than some drugs that are legally available. In other words, is the public right?

Mr. Lesser: I think you have answered your question yourself. What we need is research. The scientific community is not solidly behind what the facts are. Clearly, the public is reacting to misperceptions, lack of information and incorrect information. I think the answer lies in knowing what it is that we are dealing with first, and then making the decision as to what the appropriate control mechanisms should be.

The Chairman: I wish to return to the issue of price. From your sources, what is the price of one ounce or 30 grams of marijuana?

Mr. Lesser: First, the price varies depending on what part of the country you are asking about.

The Chairman: Let us say Ottawa.

Mr. Lesser: The price of one cigarette is between $2.50 and $3 in the greater Vancouver area. You would pay $5 on Vancouver Island and the North Coast.

The Chairman: What is the street price of an ounce?

Mr. Lesser: The cost of an ounce of the "home-grown" variety is between $20 and $25. If you are looking at hydroponically grown pot it is between $40 and $50 an ounce.

The Chairman: That means $25 for roughly 30 grams, which would make 30 cigarettes. Is that correct.

Mr. Lesser: It depends on how you roll it.

The Chairman: We are going to be in Vancouver in two weeks and we will check with the users then. Do you evaluate what is in it when you seize it?

Mr. Lesser: We do not. It goes to Health Canada labs for evaluation. Usually, it is for certificate purposes to prove that, in fact, there is an illegal substance contained in whatever the substance is that was seized. They also take a look at the purity of the substance.

The Chairman: Do you have access to those reports?

Mr. Lesser: Yes.

The Chairman: What is in them?

Mr. Lesser: Health Canada would be the best expert to answer that question. We go to them for their reports.

The Chairman: Earlier, you referred to add-on substances. Do you know what those other substances are that are added?

Mr. Lesser: I do not know that we would specifically ask for that. That is a health issue that, from the enforcement point of view, would not be important.

The Chairman: Earlier, you talked about the Manitoba student survey. You used a qualifier when you were talking about 58 per cent of those students using marijuana while driving.

Mr. Lesser: Yes, I made reference to the use of marijuana in cars.

The Chairman: In cars, perhaps not driving. You said that these were deadly results. On what type of information do you base the information that 58 per cent of students using marijuana in cars implies deadly results?

Mr. Lesser: I used two areas. One was connecting that information with Stan Thompson's editorial about the four children in Kanata being killed because of cannabis impairment. As well, the studies I mention out of B.C. indicate that 12 per cent to 14 per cent of dead drivers were found with cannabis in their systems.

The Chairman: Only cannabis and no alcohol?

Mr. Lesser: I would have to look at those studies again. There would obviously be some in combination as well.

The Chairman: Can you provide us with those studies, please?

Mr. Lesser: Yes. There is a similar study out of Quebec by the insurance board. It points out that the same percentage of those who give voluntarily blood or urine samples have traces of cannabis in their system. I am referring to those who give their consent. Obviously, it leaves us with the question of how many are not consenting that have more than that in their blood or urine.

The Chairman: I wish to return to the issue of those 150 arrests and charges by your people. Can we have a breakdown as to age, sex and the end result of those charges?

Mr. Lesser: We do not keep those statistics.

The Chairman: The only thing you know is that 150 people in Canada were arrested and charged for simple possession. However, that is the only thing that you know. Is that correct?

Mr. Lesser: No. First, 180 people were eventually charged with possession by our federal units. As I mentioned, some were originally charged with cultivation offences that were reduced to possession charges. Some were charged with possession for the purpose, and when they went to court they ended up pleading or being found guilty of possession. There were some cases where Canada Customs made seizures at border points, turned over the people to the RCMP and those resulted in possession charges.

The Chairman: Your slide indicates that almost 5,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession. Is that correct?

Mr. Lesser: That is correct. The number is approximately 4,600.

The Chairman: Does this mean that the vast majority of those charged with simple possession are neither arrested nor charged by you or your people or those contracted by you?

Mr. Lesser: No, it means that the vast majority that are arrested are done so by uniformed officers, those who are under contract of the province or municipality. A small number, which is 180, are those who are charged by our specific specialized enforcement units.

I believe we provided a report of a study done in Ottawa a few years ago that took a look at 300 random court cases involving drugs in Ottawa. Eventually, those people were charged with cannabis possession. They found that in over 90 per cent of cases the cannabis possession charge was secondary to why the police intervened in the first place. In other words, people were pulled over for driving offences or they were charged with shoplifting and they were found with cannabis.

Senator Banks: When a police officer in Canada arrests someone for impaired driving, is there any record or any information kept as to what the source of the impairment was? In other words, could we find out how many people in Canada that have been arrested for impaired driving have been charged with impaired driving where the impairment is known to have been caused by marijuana alone? Is that possible to find out? I am keeping in mind that you said in eight of the provinces this is an RCMP function.

Mr. Lesser: The Department of Justice is responsible for those kinds of statistics. The charge is called "impaired by alcohol or other drugs." I do not think the actual statistics would show what you have asked.

There has not been a level defined for cannabis as there has been for alcohol. The level for impairment is .08 with alcohol. There is no level to define whether one or two or three joints make someone impaired. We lack that legislation and technology, and we lack the research.

Senator Banks: As there is no measurement, would it not be very difficult to charge someone with impairment if it were to be attributed to cannabis alone?

Mr. Lesser: That is one of the dangers we are trying to highlight. If you are looking at changing the control of the substance, it is one of the outcomes. If there is any increase in use, you will see a significant increase in driving while impaired from marijuana.

Senator Banks: It cuts both ways, though. We do not know, you do not know, nobody knows, whether, in fact, the degree of cannabis consumption causes impairment while driving? Is that correct?

Mr. Lesser: There are extensive studies from the United States and England that show that with very minor cannabis consumption there are very significant motor and decision-making impairments. There are some studies to indicate that there are alcohol-like impairment symptoms. I do not know that anything has been done here by Transport Canada. I suspect not.

The Chairman: Next week we will have a witness from the U.S. who will be able to answer questions on American research on the subject.

Senator Kenny: In the document entitled "RCMP Views on Drug Issues," you state that the RCMP does not believe in notions of soft drugs, recreational drugs or simple possession of drugs. You consider that all forms of drug abuse to be of serious concern. You add that such terms deceive people and encourage use as it offers a false sense of security. Do you have evidence to support that statement?

Mr. Lesser: We actually took those words from Minister Rock. He had used those words in the paper that I believe you had. We then quoted Minister Rock when he was against describing cigarettes as mild or light for those reasons.

Senator Kenny: Was it a critical statement he was making, or did he indicate that he had research on this?

Mr. Lesser: I do not know that he had research on it.

Senator Kenny: Is there a distinction between use and abuse of drugs?

Mr. Lesser: Abuse is usually defined as the use of illicit drugs or the abuse of licit drugs.

Senator Kenny: You cannot define abuse by using the word abuse in the definition.

Mr. Lesser: We could find the definition used by the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse at Health Canada, but that is essentially what it says. Drug abuse is using illegal drugs or using legal drugs poorly, if you like.

Senator Banks: That is a specious argument because if one can use legal drugs without abusing them, then you cannot argue that it is impossible to use illegal drugs without abusing them. The definition that you have put out suggests that the use of illegal drugs, per se constitutes, abuse.

Mr. Lesser: The experts from Health Canada or the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse could probably respond. It is pretty well an internationally accepted definition. It is not ours.

Senator Kenny: While you have been working on major drug operations have you had any difficulty in obtaining warrants to wiretap the homes of suspects? Is that a problem for you?

Mr. Lesser: It depends on what you mean by a problem. The process itself is very labour intensive. It is very expensive when it comes to disclosure in court. There are certain financial implications to doing that. There is no particular problem in the legal process to obtain a wiretap authorization of which I am aware. That would not cause us a problem with the legislation.

Senator Kenny: The government is changing the legislation in terms of the Security Communications Security Establishment to provide for better drug enforcement. Is that something you endorse?

Mr. Lesser: I believe that refers to the current mandate of CSE and, what they can or cannot intercept. That would be a change. If they intercept Canadians in Canada talking about major drug dealers, they cannot provide that information to the RCMP. If a change were made in their mandate, then that information would flow through.

Senator Kenny: Is this something that you folks have sought?

Mr. Lesser: I do not know the genesis of that, other than September 11. It would be something that would certainly be very beneficial.

Senator Kenny: If you are currently seeking a wiretap you go before a judge, do you not?

Mr. Lesser: That is correct.

Senator Kenny: Under the new legislation, you could merely go to a politician?

Mr. Lesser: National security is not my area of expertise.

The Chairman: Are you seeking new powers through Bill C-24? Are you familiar with that?

Mr. Lesser: Yes.

The Chairman: How will it help you? Bill C-24 is the anti-gang bill.

Mr. Lesser: I think that there has been a fair bit of testimony before the House committee. I am not sure what has happened before the Senate.

The Chairman: We have not started yet. We are focusing on young offenders now.

Mr. Lesser: Bill C-95 had that five, five and five requirement. You had to have five and more people involved in crimes indictable or punishable by five years over a period of five years. By and large, it is extremely difficult to get that to court. Some cases in Montreal have been done successfully, but, by and large, it is extremely difficult to do so. It is very expensive. Essentially, it allows people to continue to commit the crimes until you have reached the five-year limit of them committing the crime in the evidence. Bill C-24 gets rid of that. I believe that in Bill C-24 the change will mean that it will be three or more committing a crime. There are various definitions of organized crime acts; therefore, it will allow investigations to be completed more quickly so that the crimes do not go on for longer periods of time.

I know that Quebec is very sensitive about the shootings of Michel Auger. About 200 people have died in Quebec over the last number of years, so there are a number issues that the bill would address.

It is fairly similar to the United Kingdom and Australian organized crime legislation. It is not particularly innovative, except for perhaps one area or two areas.

The Chairman: Let us be more specific. What about your force committing illegal action in the drug arena? You are seeking that power under Bill C-24.

Mr. Lesser: That came from the R. v. Campbell and Shirose Supreme Court ruling involving John Campbell and Salvatore Shirose. Essentially, we are looking to have the law the way it used to be prior to Campbell and Shirose.

Right now, we cannot buy stolen credit cards. We cannot operate undercover immigration stings where we would be part of an organization that would help to smuggle people into Canada or into the United States. We cannot do that.

There is a litany of types of investigations that we cannot do because of the Campbell and Shirose ruling. We are simply requesting that the law be reinstated to what is way prior to the ruling of 1999.

The Chairman: Chief Superintendent, you mentioned in your remarks, and it is in one your slides, that you took part in the consultation on the medical use of marijuana. What was your recommendation to the minister?

Mr. Lesser: I did not make a recommendation to the minister. I took part in the consultations.

The Chairman: What was your recommendation to the minister and the department in that consultation process?

Mr. Lesser: Essentially our official position is that it is a medical issue and it is up to Health Canada to make that decision.

The Chairman: Have you advised on the consequences of driving while under the influence of medical marijuana?

Mr. Lesser: A number of the concerns were raised in discussions with the officials, such as that one. The letters that people now have warn of the dangers of using cannabis and doing different things.

The Chairman: Are you not worried that it is not in the regulations?

Mr. Lesser: It will be in the regulations, will it not? Is it not part of the regulations that are proposed as far as the new letter is concerned? I believe that it is.

[Translation]

The Chairman: About prevention in schools, could you tell me exactly how it works? Is it the principal or the teacher who invites you?

Mr. Michel Pelletier, Staff Sergeant, National Coordinor, Drug Awareness Service: We started the program in Quebec at the end of the 1960s. Some parents had asked the police to make presentations on drugs. At the beginning, these meetings were held at the Richelieu or the Lions or other Clubs. Then parents asked school principals to give students an opportunity to hear these presentations in school. The schools invite the police educators.

The Chairman: How many schools invite you and how many students do you meet in a year?

Mr. Pelletier: We give more than 10 000 presentations per year. All programs have been developed in cooperation with the provincial addiction foundations. Most of our police educators who are properly trained to do so volunteer for this work.

The Chairman: Could you give us a copy of the documentation you supply when you make these presentations as well as what I would call your "Teacher's Manual"? I am sure you have some internal documents which are used to train your educators, to tell them what protocol to follow, what to say or not, and to suggest answers to those questions which are occasionally raised?

Mr. Pelletier: We don't suggest either answers or questions, but we do have a course outline. The only training program currently given is the DARE program. We don't have enough funds to develop another one.

The Chairman: DARE is an American program and it's offered in elementary schools, isn't it?

Mr. Pelletier: Yes.

The Chairman: You don't have enough funds to assess this program?

Mr. Pelletier: An evaluation is under way at the University of Akron, Ohio, in the United States. The United Kingdom is going to participate, and Canada would also like to be included. This program is designed for Grade 9 and 10 students in Quebec.

The Chairman: If a school principal should want to contact someone in a given organization because there is a drug problem in his or her school, how should he or she proceed? Is that something you are being asked?

Mr. Pelletier: Our mandate is clear, police educators have to focus on prevention, so we would direct the principal to one of Quebec municipal police services. In Canada, they have to be contacted for control purposes. Our police officers are not educators one day and enforcers the next.

[English]

The Chairman: Chief Superintendent, while preparing for our meeting this morning, our researcher did not have access to your briefs, so we went into the various Web sites that you maintain. We have many questions that have not been asked. I will send those questions to you so that you may provide us with the answers.

It would have been more convenient to have your brief in advance. We need time to ensure that the researcher is able to review and assess your information to balance it with what we already have and with what other witnesses are providing. I will give you an example. This afternoon we will have a witness who will tell us that, on and off, about one per cent of drug users are charged. That is one per cent. So, where is the problem? I would have liked to be able to ask you all those questions, but I will write you instead so that we may have those answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Pelletier: We will be happy to come back to answer these questions. We were expecting to appear in December, not October.

[English]

I would like to clarify one question asked by Senator Banks. There was a study done in Quebec that involved the Sûreté du Québec and the insurance bureau. As well, the RCMP and the Insurance Bureau of British Columbia are looking at drug recognition experts' roadside tests. Those are probably two areas that can be looked at as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before we conclude this part of the committee's hearing, I would like to remind people who are interested in the committee's work that they can get information about illegal drugs on our Web site at: www.parl.gc.ca. All of our witnesses' presentations are posted there, as well as their biographies and the support documentation they tabled because they believed it would be useful to us. There are also more than 150 links to other related sites. As well, that address can be used to send us e-mails.

On behalf of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, I thank you for your interest in our important research work.

The Chairman: We will now hear from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

[English]

We would have liked to have received in advance your remarks and documents to help us prepare and to ask intelligent questions. If there are questions we miss this morning, I request that we will be able to forward written questions and receive written answers from you.

As I mentioned earlier, we will post on our Web site questions and answers and all the related material that we are receiving from our various witnesses.

Mr. Mark Connolly, Director General, Contraband and Intelligence Services Directorate, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: Thank you, honourable senators, for this opportunity. I hope you have received my speaking notes and a document for the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs prepared by the agency. If you did not receive it in time to prepare all your questions, we apologize.

I will make a brief presentation on the role of the customs program in the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency pertaining to detection and interception of drugs at Canada's borders.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is the first line of defence against contraband entering into Canada. We are the principal federal law enforcement agency concerned with the interception of drugs at the first point of entry.

The customs branch is mandated to provide policies, programs, procedures and functional guidance respecting the processing of commercial goods and travellers; monitoring and controlling the importation and exportation of controlled and restricted goods; and preventing the entry of prohibited materials and inadmissible persons.

CCRA is committed to the interdiction of several types of contraband, including firearms, alcohol, tobacco and drugs. However, today, I will address our programs specifically aimed at illicit drug interdiction.

The customs budget for 2001-02 is $410 million. Of this total, it can be estimated that $75 million is dedicated to the interdiction of illegal drugs in areas such as; flexible response teams; district-targeting units; the Container Examination program; the Marine Centre of Expertise; regional intelligence analysts; regional intelligence officers; as well as contraband detection technology that includes x-rays, ion-mobility spectrometers and the Detector Dog service. The officers involved in these programs are not solely dedicated to drug enforcement but to contraband enforcement in general.

Drug trafficking is a worldwide problem that requires a global solution. CCRA has a contraband and intelligence program that works with national and international law enforcement agencies to develop information, indicators and trends to help identify suspicious shipments and/or persons before they arrive at the border.

Over the past decade, customs officers across Canada have seized over 189 metric tonnes of cocaine, opiates and cannabis products. In street-level transaction terms, that translates into $5.8 billion.

In order to achieve these successes, the CCRA has built a network to support enforcement programs both at the headquarters and field levels. The enforcement programs are based on strategic planning, risk management, information-gathering and dissemination, partnerships, and effective training of personnel.

The Contraband and Intelligence Services Directorate is responsible for the design, development, and implementation of strategies in regards to anti-smuggling and intelligence programs. The directorate is also responsible for providing functional direction to the regions on the management of intelligence and enforcement programs. As well, the directorate supports government policies directed at the control of strategic exports and counter-terrorism.

In response to the constraints caused by increasing volume, CCRA responded with the implementation of the Customs Action Plan to modernize customs processes and introduce programs based on risk management. The plan will ensure a seamless process for low-risk people and goods so that enforcement efforts can be concentrated on high-risk or on unknown people and goods.

In order to support risk management, CCRA has developed a comprehensive compliance improvement plan, which includes the border management plan, BMP. This plan establishes levels of examinations at ports of entry based on risk assessments. Risk is assessed from national port risk assessments and the contraband strategy.

The contraband strategy assesses levels of risk to various commodities based on a number of factors, and provides strategic direction to the national interdiction effort. The strategic direction significantly increases drug and other contraband seizures; coordinates a multi-dimensional approach to contraband interdiction; and focuses on best practices while keeping ahead of smuggling trends.

The customs branch has a vigorous intelligence program at both headquarters and in the field. This branch is made up of intelligence officers, analysts, and databases to support our front-line customs inspectors in identifying high-risk persons and goods at our borders. These units are responsible for collecting and developing intelligence and disseminating it to the line officers across the country. This unit is also involved in international liaison and exchanges of intelligence with law enforcement partners both nationally and internationally.

An intelligence analysis program of the customs branch is responsible for developing strategic operational and tactical assessments based on research and trends in order to identify high-risk points of entry, commodities, routings, concealment methods of individuals and groups involved, and the illegal import of contraband into Canada. In addition, the customs investigations program supports front-line contraband efforts, and it undertakes criminal investigations related to smuggling and customs fraud. Although not specifically mandated to conduct investigations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, customs inspectors regularly refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution involving alcohol, tobacco and other contraband.

In the early 1990s, CCRA and the RCMP began to increase their enforcement efforts at the border in response to the growing contraband smuggling problem in Canada. In February 1994, the federal government instituted the Anti-Smuggling Initiative, a comprehensive enforcement program directed at the smuggling and distribution of contraband throughout the country. With more than 111 million travellers and 11 million commercial shipments arriving in Canada every year, it is imperative that CCRA rely on effective risk management and targeting to identify high-risk individuals, shipments and conveyances.

CCRA maintains alliances with other customs administrations, national and international law enforcement agencies, and external stakeholders relating to contraband, intelligence, strategic export and counterterrorism programs. CCRA has also built important partnerships with other law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP and provincial and municipal police.

We have also built partnerships around the world with other customs administrations and law enforcement agencies such as the United States Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the World Customs Organization, the Caribbean Customs Law Enforcement Council, and Interpol.

CCRA supports the concept of partnerships and multidisciplinary units to attack organized crime and criminal activity and terrorism. The CCRA regularly participates in joint-force operations of both short and long-term duration. The regional task force located in Cornwall, created in 1993 to combat organized crime in tobacco smuggling in Eastern Ontario, includes officers from the RCMP, OPP, Cornwall Police, Akwesasne Police Forces, and of course CCRA.

The Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, IBETS, is a multi-agency law enforcement initiative between Canada and the United States. These teams address cross-border crimes. CCRA and police pool resources on a daily basis with local, state and provincial enforcement agencies to combine expertise and intelligence.

Currently, there are three IBET teams, operating in British Columbia and Washington, in New Brunswick and Maine, and in Manitoba and Minnesota.

The Integrated Proceeds of Crime IPOC, initiative is mandated to fight the illegal proceeds from enterprise crimes offences and drug smuggling. These units are staffed with a mix of federal, provincial and municipal police, as well as Department of Justice and other government officials. Customs and tax officers participate in this multidisciplinary initiative by enhancing the investigation and intelligence capabilities of these units with regard to the border.

CCRA also works with the private sector through the Partnership in Protection program. This is a two-way partnership between industry and government. The two partners sign a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines ways to work together to stop illegal activities. The CCRA continues to work with the partner and provide guidance on how to spot illegal activity and in turn the importer or carrier provides CCRA with information it may have regarding illegal activity.

CCRA has been a part of the Canada drug strategy and the international drug strategy. In phase one, CCRA embarked upon several initiatives throughout Canada through the Canada Drug Strategy that contributed to 12,550 drug seizures valued at over $1.8 billion. During the period 1992-97 CCRA also responded well. The additional work done under the Canada drug strategy contributed to over 18,500 drug seizures valued at over $4.5 billion.

CCRA is also a federal partner in the international drug strategy. CCRA uses highly sophisticated contraband detection equipment to conduct effective, timely and non-intrusive examinations to assist in the identification of narcotics. We currently have 55 X-ray systems, including baggage, mobile truck and rolling cargo systems; fifty ion scans used to detect trace amounts of narcotics on almost any surface; forty detector dog teams deployed across the country; 67 contraband detection kits that include a number of useful tools such as probes and fibrescopes; and one submersible remote operated vehicle used to detect narcotics and other contraband attached to the hull of ships below the water level.

The CCRA places a great emphasis on training its customs inspectors in the area of contraband enforcement. A number of specialized enforcement and intelligence courses have been developed and are delivered to customs inspectors, both in Canada and in other countries. The courses range from general drug and contraband enforcement training to missing children search, commercial aircraft search, commercial motor vehicle search, counter-terrorism, marine container targeting, intelligence and intelligence analysis, strategic exports, surveillance, and contraband detection technology training modules.

CCRA has access to several enforcement systems and databases, both internal and external, which help customs officers identify those not complying with the law.

CCRA has built an automated enforcement system that stores enforcement data and records of seizures. They system tracks lookouts and contains intelligence of ongoing investigations and information from external sources.

The CCRA also uses other systems at the first point of entry that allows customs inspectors to identify the level of risk of travellers, carriers and/or drivers.

Another valuable system being used at all Canadian airports is the passport reader. This reader scans the name and bar code of a passport. Within seconds, the system will alert the customs inspector if the traveller is high-risk or if there is a suspicion of drug-smuggling or other criminality.

CCRA also has access to police data banks, such as the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, and the Police Information Retrieval System, PIRS. These databases are used to collect information on smuggling investigations.

In order to further enhance intelligence and interdiction in the regions there are a number of dedicated enforcement personnel. Regional intelligence officers, RAOs, work with local police authorities, targeters, investigators and customs officers to identify high-risk movement through the border. FRTs, Flexible Response Teams, consist of highly trained customs officers that have been placed across Canada to perform monitoring and compliance verification activities as well as sampling stints on travellers chosen on a random basis.

RAAs, Regional Intelligence Analysts, analyze large seizures to identify links to organized crime; conduct threat assessments based on trends, and help identify future risk.

Investigators work with front-line staff, law enforcement agencies, as well as intelligence officers, to investigate the illegal importation or exportation of goods, including contraband.

Under Bill C-18 designated customs officers have been given the authority to arrest individuals found to be in violation of the Criminal Code. The primary focus has been on persons with drinking and driving offences; offences involving the possession of stolen property; persons wanted on outstanding warrants, and persons involved in abduction and kidnapping offences.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree that in light of the recent events in the United States it is important that we take steps towards ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. In order to ensure enhanced security and interdiction efforts at Canadian airports, Bill S-23 outlines provisions for customs to have access to advance passenger information on international travellers. This information will assist customs to identify high-risk travellers, such as criminals and soon suspected terrorists before they arrive in Canada. Bill S-23 also requires people and airport staff to report to customs when leaving a customs controlled area.

Similarly, the reporting of currency and monetary instruments at the border will be imposed under the new Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Act. The statute was enacted to assist in detection, investigations and prosecution of money laundering offences.

In conclusion, the smuggling of drugs and other contraband is of ongoing concern to Canadians and the government. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency continues to be vigilant in its enforcement efforts at the border. We will continue to develop and implement initiatives that enhance our border controls; improve our targeting of high-risk goods and people; and broaden our intelligence capacity through other domestic and international partnerships.

Senator Kenny: Mr. Connolly, I found your presentation very useful. Can we start with you outlining to us what legislation you rely on when you are doing your work with CCRA?

Mr. Connolly: Our primary piece of legislation is the Customs Act, but we also enforce roughly 75 other statutes that deal with everything from export of goods to agricultural products. The customs tariff is also a piece of legislation in which we are significantly involved. We have Criminal Code authority under the Criminal Code, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, and the Export Import Permits Act, which I just mentioned, as well as roughly 75 other pieces of legislation. However, the Customs Act is our primary piece of legislation.

Senator Kenny: Could you tell us what budget the agency works with?

Mr. Connolly: I am not sure I have the total budget for the agency, but I believe the customs program works with $410 million annually. I believe the agency's budget is in excess of $2 billion, but I could clarify that figure for you, senator.

Senator Kenny: Thank you. What percentage of that would be for intelligence? What component do you have?

Mr. Connolly: It can be estimated that $75 million is dedicated to interdiction of illegal drugs. The figure for intelligence itself I would have to get for you. We have approximately 8,000 customs employees working in Canada at headquarters in the six regions and about 3600 of those are uniformed officers. However, a number of those uniformed staff belongs to our flexible response teams. There are approximately 200 people working in the intelligence business and they work as intelligenc analysts, intelligence officers and targeters.

Senator Kenny: Would you help the please define the word "targeter"?

Mr. Connolly: A targeter is primarily a customs inspector, who works with a series of databases that employs advanced information provided by importers, shipping lines, commercial carriers, importers and exporters. They use that data and search databases in order to determine commodities, persons, conveyances, vessels and locations that will pose the highest risk.

For example, if a ship arrives at Halifax that has 300 or 400 containers on it, it would be the targeter's responsibility to take ship's report, the information on the importations on the ship, the information on the containers on the ship, the information on the crew, importers and exporters, and pick out those that should be targeted as having the highest risk. That information would then be passed down to frontline customs inspectors who would be doing the examinations, and they would use that information in order to carry out their daily work. Obviously we cannot look at 300 to 400 containers off each ship that arrives, and we have to narrow that down those that post the highest risk.

Senator Kenny: I was struck by the figure in your testimony that there are 11 million commercial shipments arriving in Canada each year. By the 11 million commercial shipments, would that ship you talked about coming into Halifax be one of them?

Mr. Connolly: That ship would have a number of shipments on board.

Senator Kenny: Are you saying that it is 11 million times the number of containers on a ship? Are you telling us that each container would be one of those shipments?

Mr. Connolly: Each container could be one shipment or more than one shipment depending on whether it is a container used for multiple shipments or not.

Senator Kenny: When you said you have people in the field, are they entirely in Canada?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

Senator Kenny: Yet, you are dealing with material that is coming from outside of Canada. How do you collect intelligence on material coming from outside of Canada? What process do you use to get that information? Is it available here in this country?

Mr. Connolly: A fair amount of the information is available or is transmitted to us. For example, ships that arrive from abroad are required to transmit the data to us in advance of their arrival. The crew list is also transmitted to us in advance of arrival of a ship. We can start the process of analyzing that information and targeting those high-risk shipments from that information that is provided by carriers, importers, freight forwarders, shipping lines, et cetera. They provide us with that data before the ship leaves.

If we have a suspect vessel or suspect shipment on a particular vessel that will be arriving, we will also get information from other customs administrations, perhaps from the port where the ship left, or from other databases. We will work with the RCMP and others to refine the data, depending how much information we need or how much information is missing when we are looking at a specific container vessel or shipment.

Senator Kenny: How do you verify the information that is sent to you in advance? How do you know you are getting accurate information?

Mr. Connolly: There is a requirement under the law for shippers and for carriers, as well as importers, to provide accurate and truthful information. Once we get the data, we analyze it using a number of databases, including our own. Quite often importers are frequent importers. In fact, we look at first-time importers fairly closely, but quite often they are repeat importers and have an established record of business with us.

Other information we receive we may have to analyze or verify. For example, quite often we will receive information on a shipment and through our verification we will find out where its destination is.

Senator Kenny: Of the 11 million, how many do you physically look at?

Mr. Connolly: Our examination rates are determined by a number of factors. They vary by port, mode of transport and type of shipment. We issue that information to our regions and tell them the numbers they should be looking at based on risk. This is done in order to have an effective program.

On the marine side, on average we look at just under 2 per cent of the containers that come into Canada. That 2 per cent is given a full examination. The goods are taken out of the container to be inspected and the inside of the container is inspected as well. Another 1 per cent is given what we call tail-gate examinations in which we open the doors of a container while it is the dock. That is done because of internal conspiracies. Quite often in the marine and air modes, drugs are put in the back of a container by someone who has a confederate in Canada. An exporter or cargo handler in a foreign country will put drugs or other contraband in the back end of a trailer and when it arrives in Canada the doors are opened and the goods removed before we get to it. It is to thwart that activity that we do tail-gate examinations.

Senator Kenny: Do you keep track of what leaves the country?

Mr. Connolly: Yes, we have an export program. We keep track of those goods for which permits are required or on which there are export controls. There is also an export database that is jointly managed between Statistics Canada and us.

Senator Kenny: What percentage of exports do you keep track of? You said you sometimes rely on other customs agencies for intelligence. That made me wonder whether they keep track of what is leaving their country. Usually customs officials are more interested in what is arriving in their country than in what is leaving it. Could you elaborate on how much attention you and other countries pay to what is leaving the port as compared to what is coming in?

Mr. Connolly: We focus primarily on exports of controlled goods; goods that require a permit to leave Canada. We have controlled list for exports. Certain goods require permits to leave the country. Armaments and chemicals are examples of goods that require permits to leave the country. There are controls on those exports and those are the ones on which we focus.

Our contraband program looks at imports and we look at exports that are controlled or where we believe there may be a problem, such as high-risk commodities like tobacco and alcohol.

Senator Kenny: It would be impossible to open every container coming in, so you must rely on intelligence to decide where to spend your efforts. You talked about customs agents in other countries, but how can you be sure that the intelligence you are getting is good intelligence? How can you find out where to look given that there are so many ways to bring things into the country? Obviously, the key is intelligence, but what gives you the level of confidence that you have that your intelligence system is working?

Mr. Connolly: The only way we know that the intelligence system is working is through results. Our process is always based on risk management. We use more than intelligence. We use indicators as well. We have developed indicators over the years with both our domestic and international partners.

The World Customs Organization, which is headquartered in Brussels, is an organization of customs administrations. We share a lot of information on indictors, techniques, best practices, risk management philosophies and techniques in order to enhance our customs programs at home. We have established fairly substantial partnerships with other customs administrations. We trade information on organizations that are known to be involved in smuggling.

Through the risk management process we focus on good targeting and good intelligence. We do not always have intelligence, but quite often will make seizures or interdictions based on targeting techniques where we have narrowed down the number of containers. When we believe that goods may be secreted, we narrow down the field in order to determine where we should look and what we should look for.

We also use post-seizure analysis. As we make seizures and enforcement interdictions, we analyze the information we have gathered in order to determine trends or patterns and to anticipate what organized smugglers will do in the future.

We do not always have intelligence and we will not always have the information we need to find every contraband shipment that comes to Canada. We have to narrow the field. If we were catching every one, I would not be sitting here before you today. It is a difficult and onerous task. We have to use risk management, which is a combination of all the things I mentioned.

Senator Banks: Do we trade information with our partners in the customs unions? You said that you get information from people outside the country that indicates that you should watch a particular group, shipment or person. I assume that we reciprocate. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Mr. Connolly: When we have good indicators that involve another country, we solicit information from them and try to give them information, if it will help them.

For example, a fairly significant seizure of cocaine was made a few years ago. A criminal organization had hidden the drugs in the bottom of pots and pans.

The manufacturer of those pots was involved in the process. Into the bottom plate of a pot they put about one-half a kilo of cocaine. They then fused the pots together so that the consumer was getting a set of pots and pans.

We received that information from another customs administrator who had a seizure in that area. We immediately identified that information and targeted pots and pans and in particular pots and pans coming from that country, that company and from that area of the world. We passed that on to the Australians who also used the information. We both ended up making significant seizures. That was the modus operandi being used by that particular criminal organization.

We have made other types of seizures after having received information on individuals working out of the cartels in South America. There was a certain group of people doing smuggling. We passed that information on to other customs administrations and they have done the same.

Two years ago we seized about 11 tonnes of hashish in a container. Once we targeted the container and made the seizure, we passed the information on because we realized there were other containers coming from this area of the world. We passed the information on to the United States who made a similar sized seizure of a container that probably would have ended up coming to Canada.

In that sense, we do trade information on suspect containers and organizations, et cetera, which are involved in smuggling.

Senator Banks: About 60 per cent of the seizures you make are of contraband of one kind or another that has come in on container ships. Is that correct?

Mr. Connolly: I am not sure if it is 60 per cent, but we have those figures here.

Senator Banks: Whatever the percentage is, is that a reflection of your budget attribution, or does it cause your budget attribution to be spent in that direction one way or the other? Do you spend 60 per cent of your contraband search resources on container ships? Does that result in 60 per cent of your seizures?

Another way of putting the question is: Is that one of the easiest places to find contraband and the cheapest in terms of the expenditure of your resources?

Mr. Connolly: We spend a fair amount, but it is not 60 per cent. For the most part, marine seizures are made at three major seaports across Canada. That is where the majority of containers enter Canada. We have concentrated a group of resources in all those locations that can deal with the volume of traffic that comes through there. We have also concentrated a fair amount of what I call our contraband technology budget into those areas as well.

Having said that, it would not be 60 per cent of our budget because we have airports, railways, and highways to deal with.

Senator Banks: It seems that would be the most efficient. That is if you are finding about 59 per cent of your seizures are made there.

Mr. Connolly: They are the ones that are of value. It is not so much the number of seizures because, in terms of numbers, we have a higher number of seizures elsewhere. It is the value. The reason for that is the size.

Senator Banks: When you are calculating value, it is end-perceived street value. Is that correct?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct. We calculate it by value and by weight.

Senator Banks: I would like you to talk to us about the mail. Aside from the fact that some substances can be liquefied and put into blotters and sent someplace in an envelope, your agency opens mail in some circumstances. Would you tell the committee, the sort of cut-off point at which you need to have either the person who sent the mail or the person who is to receive the mail present when you open the package or envelope as compared to those circumstances in which you can open mail without having a court order or without the recipient being present? Tell us what the rules are in that regard.

Mr. Connolly: It is called the 30-gram rule. Thirty grams is our cut-off point. Perhaps I can explain it in two ways. First, there is letter mail, and then there is what I call package mail, which includes boxes, bubble packs or things like that. The post office separates that mail before we even see it. First-class mail goes in one direction and packages go in another. They are brought to the customs area where there is screening going on. With regard to what I call letter-mail, we do not normally look at it at all. We spot-check it from time to time because 99 per cent of the mail that falls into the letter mail category is under the 30-gram weight.

Senator Banks: Unless it comes from or is addressed to what you would have identified as a person of interest; is that fair?

Mr. Connolly: We try to target mail, but it is very difficult. Yes, we try to target mail. We spot-check it and take the dogs in. We try to root out any drugs in the mail. If it is less than 30 grams, obviously, we do not open it. There is a process we have to follow in order to deal with that 30-gram mail. In some cases the mail is undeliverable and it goes back to the post office. They destroy it, follow through on it, return it, or do whatever they have to do with it.

We x-ray the package mail, which is mail in the 30-gram or above category. We will scan it, if necessary, to try to detect trace amounts of narcotics. Essentially, package mail is looked at to determine whether or not it is dutiable, or if it contains contraband. If it contains contraband, it is seized. If it does not contain contraband and if there are duties and taxes payable, then we collect them. If it is not duty and tax payable, it is released.

Senator Banks: If it is illegal, you do something else about it.

Mr. Connolly: That is correct, depending on what is in it. It could be anything from drugs to firearms parts to child pornography.

Senator Banks: Then you would pass that to the appropriate law enforcement agency, I presume, or would you act on it directly?

Mr. Connolly: In some cases we will seize it, depending on what it is. In other cases, we may work with law enforcement to do what is called a controlled delivery, that is, to have it delivered to make an apprehension or arrest. In other cases, it might be outright destroyed depending on what it is.

Senator Banks: How much attention do your people in B.C. pay to the movement of B.C. marijuana to Washington State? It is not a controlled substance. It is not a controlled substance or a substance that comes under the lists in your books of exports.

Mr. Connolly: No one will report it.

Senator Banks: How do you get involved with that? There is a lot of marijuana grown in British Columbia that moves to Washington State. How much attention do you pay to that?

Mr. Connolly: We do not go out on a regular basis searching for marijuana that is being exported from Canada in a container or a truck. We go back to the targeting and having information from our law enforcement partners that there is a need for us to look or intervene in something that is being exported.

If it is a controlled or regulated substance, or if we have intelligence that directs us to look at an export shipment, then we will do so. From time to time we do random examinations on exports.

The export resources deal primarily with things like chemical precursors and strategic exports where we are concerned about the exportation of high technology to countries that are on a control list. We are concerned about chemicals, precursors and other things such as technology that could be used in the development of weapons of mass destruction. That is a more counter-terrorism kind of effort that we concentrate on.

We do look for drugs when we have the information, and we do random checks where trucks are required to stop and report to us. Most trucks today are not necessarily required to stop and report to us at the border on the way out. They have to report on the way in to the United States. Export documents are not necessarily required to be filed. There is not a requirement under the law for them to be filed. We would not necessarily look at those unless we had information that we should be looking at them.

The Chairman: Mr. Connolly, you mentioned the Canada drug strategy between 1987-97. What has happened since 1997?

Mr. Connolly: At present, we still use the resources that we have from the Canada drug strategy in the past. They are still in place, and they are approved. We have ongoing resources that were approved that we still use. There was a curtailment of some of those resources but some were left in place, and we still have those.

There is also an international drug strategy that was approved a few years ago. The international drug strategy was approved by cabinet but is not funded yet. Of course, there is intention in the future to go forward for renewals on the Canada drug strategy.

The Chairman: Before going into values and seizure, I want to go into passport readers. Do you cover all the ports of entry with those readers or not?

Mr. Connolly: We use them at our airports. As part of Bill S-23 and as part of the minister's announcement two weeks ago with respect to efforts against terrorism, we are now going to move to what I will call a second-generation type of passport reader that has better capabilities. It can also read any card that is readable, such as driver's licences, et cetera.

We will move forward and implementing that nationally. We will be moving our systems into marine facilities where we do passenger and marine vessels, and also at our bus terminals along the Canada-U.S. border.

We use passport readers at our airports today, but we are going to expand the use of passport readers into other areas. It will be a second-generation passport reader.

The Chairman: Could you expand on what kind of data to which you have access when you are looking into those bar codes in the passport?

Mr. Connolly: The passport reader checks the information against the immigration database to verify in fact this is the person and whether the person is, or has been, a wanted person by immigration. The passport reader will also identify whether it is a stolen, lost or fraudulent passport.

The passport is read against those databases. It also goes against customs databases for lookouts that we have in the database for customs violations or customs offences.

The Chairman: Do you have access to all the data banks of your international partners?

Mr. Connolly: We have access to a number of databases within Canada. Not all databases are accessible at this time in a full sense on the frontline or for the officer standing in the booth.

We are in the process of upgrading. We do have access to the CPIC and to a number of customs intelligence databases. We also have access to the RCMP system, as well.

We not have direct access to foreign intelligence data banks, but there are processes to follow in order to get access or to get the information from those countries.

The Chairman: Let us go now discuss smuggling and importation. We have just heard from the RCMP.

The RCMP estimated that, in 2000, 100 tonnes of hashish, 15 tonnes of cocaine and 6 tonnes of liquid hashish were smuggled into Canada. I refer to page 10 of the background documentation that you have given us. Let us compare the figures.

Out of the 100 tonnes of hashish estimated by the RCMP to be smuggled into Canada, we are talking about 21 tonnes seized by your organization. For cocaine, it would be 1.4 tonnes of cocaine. For liquid hashish, it would be 1 tonne.

How can we reconcile that information? From the RCMP testimony we are informed that these drugs have been smuggled into Canada. Therefore, it went through one of your areas. How can you reconcile that? How does it fit?

Mr. Connolly: I would have do some comparison analysis.

The Chairman: I can provide you with the document. I have it in front of me. There is no page number, but it is entitled "Estimated Canadian Consumption."

Mr. Connolly: I have it.

They are saying that about 100 tonnes gets smuggled in, and we are saying that we seized about 20 tonnes. We know that we seized 20.8 tonnes of hashish last year. That is roughly 20 per cent. Actually, it is better than I thought.

The Chairman: How do they know that amount was smuggled?

Mr. Connolly: Most hashish that comes into Canada is not produced in Canada. I am not aware of hashish that is produced in Canada. Most of it comes from outside of Canada.

Cocaine is not produced in Canada. It comes from outside Canada. It is the same for liquid hash.

Most of our drugs come from outside. We estimate that the amount of drugs from a value point of view is roughly between $7 billion and $10 billion worth of drugs a year. That is our estimate.

It has to be that broad of a range because we would need to know how much is being consumed in Canada in order to make a determination on what is being smuggled. That is a difficult thing to know. We can only make estimates; estimates are just that.

We do an analysis every year as part of our contraband strategy. We do a risk analysis to try to focus our risk management programs.

You cannot get everything at the border. That is the only way I can reconcile it.

A little bit better than 50 per cent of all the narcotics seizures made in Canada are made by customs. We are strategically placed at points of entry.

However, the other 45 per cent or 50 per cent in Canada is seized by other law enforcement agencies. If we netted 20 tonnes, I could not say that all other law enforcement agencies also netted 20 tonnes. I do not know have that information. However, we estimate that, we get about 50 per cent every year. If we are averaging about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of what we estimate to be brought into Canada, I would suspect that there is probably another 10 per cent seized by other law enforcement agencies.

Senator Banks: Can I assume that, if your agency seized 20.8 tons of hashish in 2000, we could add that to whatever hashish was seized by the Vancouver Police Department, the RCMP, et cetera? It might be more that has been seized globally.

Mr. Connolly: A greater amount would be seized globally. We know that for a fact. The numbers in our report are our numbers only. They do not include global numbers.

Senator Kenny: Can you compare how well we do at stopping drugs and the seizures we have had on the Canadian side with what is happening on the American side? Are their seizure numbers higher from drugs that have come from Canada to the United States, or are our numbers higher relevant to seizures of drugs from the United States to Canada? What are the results on the two sides of the border?

Mr. Connolly: We have not done a comparative analysis between the countries. In fact, it is very difficult to get all the information to do a comparative analysis from the United States. U.S. Customs can provide us with information in respect of their seizures and we can do a comparative analysis in that way against our customs data.

It is more difficult for them to gather their law enforcement data domestically so that they can make a determination of the full size of their problem. We are in the process of trying to do that now. We are trying to do some comparative analysis between their success rate and ours.

To understand their success rate, you have to understand their threat and the quantity of drugs entering the United States. I do not have those figures and I do not know the size of their problem on a global scale. We think that the dollar value of drugs in Canada is between $7 billion and $10 billion. I have heard of figures in the 100s of millions of dollars. I don't know really know what the size of their problem is.

To do a comparative analysis on success rates does not simply mean comparing our numbers to their numbers. Those figures would be useful because they also share a border with Mexico, where a significant number of seizures are made.

Senator Kenny: If they are collecting the statistics, they must do it by border and they must know where the seizures have happened. You know if the seizures occur on the Pacific Coast, or on the Atlantic Coast, or if they arrive at an airport. They must have the same information. I ask this question because our colleagues in Washington are frequently critical of us when we met, and they refer to our border as being a "leaky border."

I would like your help in responding to that accusation. Would you begin by comparing the number of agents we have on each side? Do we have a comparable number or a greater number of customs officers along the border? Would you provide us with information about our success rate in apprehending smuggled goods from the United States to Canada and, eventually, vice versa? If you do not have the data now, would you provide it to the committee later?

Mr. Connolly: I will try to answer that question in several different ways. First, I have not seen any substantive or empirical data to support a contention that Canada is a sieve for the smuggling of narcotics into the United States. In fact, I know about the issue and the issue of "B.C. bud," or marijuana from British Columbia that is often used as an example that marijuana is being traded for other kinds of drugs out West. However, I do not have any empirical data to support that. Quite often it is anecdotal and it is not empirical.

We do know that a substantial amount of drugs that are destined for Canada via the United States do not make it here. We know that because we have that information or intelligence. We have been told that.

Comparing successes, whether they are relevant to the North-South border or the perimeter border is difficult because it is akin to a comparison of apples and oranges.

It is difficult to answer your question. The U.S. has the same problems and the same sources of drugs that we have. The same areas of the world send drugs to them as send drugs to Canada.

I would like to be able to say that I believe our consumption per capita is less in Canada, and I would probably be fairly comfortable in saying that if I had some hardcore data to prove it.

I would like to be able to say that there are fewer drugs from Canada entering the United States than entering Canada from the United States. I would feel comfortable in saying that because it is a different kind of drug. We are talking about marijuana that is going South, or they are talking about marijuana going South, and we are talking about other kinds of drugs coming North. It is difficult. I just would not be able to answer the question.

Forty per cent of the drugs that come into North America whether to Canada or to the United States, come from the Caribbean. I am not saying that it is being produced in the Caribbean, but quite often that is the route used to bring drugs into North America. They have, at marine ports, the same problems as we have at our marine ports, only on a larger scale because they have larger volumes. I am not sure I can answer your question.

Senator Kenny: Are customs officers on each side comparable in number?

Mr. Connolly: We can obtain that figure for you. They have a shared role for immigration purposes at their border. Immigration officers also man the primary inspection line at the U.S. border, whereas in Canada, customs officers do primary immigration along the border. We may have more customs officers on our border than they have on theirs, but I will wait to verify that number. I would suspect that we have more because of that reason; our officers have double duty.

The Chairman: How many accesses exist between the U.S. and Canada?

Mr. Connolly: We have about 140 land border offices and there are hundreds of roads more than the 147 border offices that we have. We have many roads across the border where there is no customs' presence.

The Chairman: I am trying to understand the numbers you have given us. I am focusing on the U.S. and the U.K., on page 10. You state that the U.S., the U.K. and the Netherlands constitute 60 per cent of all seizures made.

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

The Chairman: If we read the other paragraph concerning the value of seizures, the Americans and the United Kingdom are not at the top of the list.

Mr. Connolly: That is right. The list is on page 22.

The Chairman: In French, the list is on page 27. From the United States, you made 104 seizures for a value of $6.7 million. Is that right?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

The Chairman: For the United Kingdom, it is just a little lower at 93 seizures for $2 million. Is that right?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

The Chairman: To what substance does that $6.7 million from the United States refer?

Mr. Connolly: It refers mostly to cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, hashish, liquid hash and methamphetamines. Generally these drugs are smuggled into Canada by individuals although some of the drugs do come in commercial lots. For the most part, they are found as large amounts such as what we get in marine containers and so on.

It is different kinds as well. When you are talking different countries and talking different routeings, quite often many of our shipments from Europe are ecstasy and methamphetamines. Forty per cent from the Caribbean is harder drugs. The heroin comes from Southeast Asia.

There is a mix of drugs from the United States. However, the quantities, for the most part, are not as significant as to other modes of transportation. I am talking about the land border when I talk about the United States.

The Chairman: Could you tell us the final destination of the large seizure of containers made in Montreal? Was it destined for Canada or the U.S?

Mr. Connolly: Canada.

The Chairman: You have probably heard the same rumours that we have heard. We hear that Canada is the port of entry of many illegal substances that are going to be shipped to the U.S. Can you sustain that rumour, or is it only a rumour?

Mr. Connolly: I think that it is only a rumour. Fifty per cent of the container traffic that goes into Montreal is destined for the United States. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, we do total "de-stuffs" of containers and tailgate examinations. We look at those containers destined for the United States just that same as we look at our own. If it is targeted, it is targeted.

In fact, through the shared border with the United States, particularly with U.S. customs, we are working on efforts to assist each other in targeting containers in transit. There are a number of containers that land in the United States that are destined for Canada. They usually come off a ship at Newark, New Jersey or on the West Coast and are put on a train. They cross into Canada by train. Trainloads have to be targeted the same way as if it were coming off a ship. We are working together with agencies in order to try to target high-risk shipments, because quite often I will have more information on a Canadian shipment that is landing in Newark than the U.S. will have. If we can provide the appropriate targets, they can do the examination at first point of arrival, which is what we are trying to do as well. We strive to do an examination at first point of arrival, but there is nothing to sustain the drugs that we get by marine container that are destined for anywhere else but Canada.

The Chairman: You mentioned 100 of access roads between the U.S. and Canada that are not staffed.

Mr. Connolly: CCRA has a shared responsibility for border management. We share that with the RCMP. Our activities are primarily located at points of entry. We do have flexible response teams that respond to off-site clearance locations such marinas, docks, smaller ports and places of that nature. For roads that are without customs officers or have no presence, the responsibility for customs management is with the RCMP. It is their responsibility to patrol them. On the U.S. side, there is a border patrol for immigration purposes and U.S. customs for customs purposes.

The Chairman: How does it work for land marine access? Let us say Lac Champlain. How does it work for a boat travelling from Canada to the U.S. or from the U.S. to Canada?

Mr. Connolly: Pre-September 11, we had what is called a Canpass program where people pre-register with customs. They provide us with their information including their name, date of birth and different types of information that we verify to ensure that they are who they say that they are and that they are a low-risk traveller. We issue them a Canpass with which they can move back and forth across the border on the lake. They telephone report that they are crossing the boarder and have a Canpass. They are spot-checked. We have our flexible response teams there for the season. The lake is busy in the summertime. Occasionally in the wintertime there are those with Canpasses who use snow machines if the lake is frozen. There is a process in place for people to report.

If a person does not have a Canpass, then of course there are locations where they must report to customs and go through appropriate clearance processes.

The Chairman: You mentioned spot checks. You monitor the flow of vessels?

Mr. Connolly: The RCMP is out there as well as our flexible response teams to monitor those vessels and snow machines that are crossing the lake. I am not sure if snow machines cross Lac Champlain but there are other lakes where that applies.

The Chairman: The events of September 11 changed that.

Mr. Connolly: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Is that an area of concern in land marine access?

Mr. Connolly: We know who the people are that were on the Canpass system. That is the idea of having a good risk management program, to know who your clients are and to be able to assess whether they will or will cause a problem.

All of the people on the Canpass program are low-risk persons. Subsequent to September 11, we checked those databases against new the lists that have been generated. Every one on our Canpass program remains low-risk.

We have not re-instituted Canpass yet. We suspended it on September 11 as a result of that situation. We are monitoring the situation now and re-evaluating how we want to reintroduce a permit program.

The Chairman: On page 17 of your document, you refer to the number of marijuana seizures. I am trying to reconcile the two graphs on the top of that page.

There is a definite trend between 1992 and now in terms of number of seizures, but there is a no trend or large variation in the size of seizures. Could you reconcile that for me, please?

Mr. Connolly: As we say in our report, about 60 per cent of the seized marijuana comes by air passengers in cargo streams. Why have seizures gone down? I am not sure.

The Chairman: I am trying to reconcile the two. There is a definite trend. The amount of marijuana seized between 1991-2000 is a declining number. The graph on the left side -

Mr. Connolly: That is the size of the seizure. That reads that we have fewer seizures but greater amounts. We are seeing the same in the marine sector. We have fewer seizures but larger seizures. Those are the commercial quantities.

Perhaps I could give you an example because I was a customs inspector back in the early 1970s. At the port where I worked, we were probably getting 10 cannabis seizures a day.. The number of seizures has declined because individual travellers are not crossing the border with marijuana or drugs. They know that they are subject to examination or subject to check.

Larger seizures are coming and are being smuggled in by organized criminal groups or by professional mules that are smuggling on behalf of an organization.

That is the difference. There are fewer individual seizures and more and larger seizures being brought in by professional smugglers or someone hired by smugglers to bring the drugs in.

The Chairman: That is only marijuana. It is not cannabis as a generic term? It is only the leaves?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

The Chairman: Twenty-two per cent of those seizures are from the U.S.?

Mr. Connolly: That is correct.

Senator Banks: I would like to confirm that the graph to which I was referring in my first question is the one on page 21, where it says that 59.7 per cent of significant drug seizures in 2000 came from marine cargo.

I have a question that is merrily curiosity regarding the size of seizures. On page 11 of the background material there is a chart that shows in descending order of the value of the seizures, Haiti was the source of 12 seizures, which had a value of $93.5 million. Next on the list is Jamaica with 178 seizures with a value of less.

Is that because of the nature of the product or of the size? It is such a large disparity.

Mr. Connolly: Mode of transport is largely the reason. A container on ship arriving from Jamaica would hold a larger shipment than that coming via Jamaica by air. Most of our seizures from Jamaica come by air.

Senator Banks: Seizures of shipments from Haiti would be a small number of extremely large amounts of drugs of some kind.

Mr. Connolly: I would have to look at our analysis on that, but you are probably right.

The Chairman: Our researcher will look into it and read your testimony, and I will write to you for specific questions.

[Translation]

Before we suspend this meeting, I would like to remind people who are interested in the committee's work that they can get information about illegal drugs on our Web site at: www.parl.gc.ca.

All of our witnesses' presentations are posted there, as well as their biographies and the support documentation they tabled because they believed it would be useful to us. There are also more than 150 links to other related sites. As well, that address can be used to send us e-mails.

[English]

We will reconvene at 1:30.

The committee adjourned.