SNUD Committee Meeting

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS

COMITÉ SPÉCIAL SUR LA CONSOMMATION NON MÉDICALE DE DROGUES OU MÉDICAMENTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 2001

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): We're very pleased to have with us the honourable Senator Pierre Claude Nolin. He chairs the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.

You have two individuals with you, Senator Nolin. We are very pleased to see you, because it is not often that we have visitors from the other place.

[English]

I think it's wonderful that you are taking the time to share with us your experience so far.

[Translation]

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (De Salaberry, PC, Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs): First of all, Madam Chair, thank you for inviting us to appear before you. Let me introduce my colleagues. They are the Research Director of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, Dr. Sansfaçon, and Mr. Blair Armitage, the Committee Clerk.

The Chair: It is interesting to have a clerk on one's side.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes. In fact, his first reaction was to ask why he would be here.

[English]

I think it's important to have him here, in case you have any questions on the administrative component of our effort. And of course, the reason I asked Dr. Sansfaçon to be with me is the importance of the rigorous approach and the research-based facts we are looking at.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

It is true that it is rare for colleagues from one chamber to be invited to the other for a dialogue. My colleagues and I were very pleased to receive your invitation and to accept it without delay.

I assume I could tell you something about the committee's background, that is when we started to consider the issue of illegal drugs, and the progress we have made so far.

Those of you who were here at the time will recall that in 1996, the Parliament of Canada was invited to study a bill designed to reorganize Canadian laws on controlled drugs and substances. One of the purposes of the bill was to combine two major pieces of legislation: the Narcotic Control Act and a significant part of the Food and Drugs Act. Other more minor acts were also included in this review. This was Bill C-8.

During the review of the bill by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, my colleagues and I virtually concluded that banning such substances was not the correct approach. If we wanted to control and reduce the use, and particularly the abuse of these substances, prohibition was definitely not the right approach, because it was part of the problem.

• 1540

We wrote a long report, which unfortunately did not question banning such substances in the body of the legislation. In light of the debate that had taken place in your Chamber, we did not feel authorized to amend the bill to this extent to remove its reference to criminal law. This happened for all sorts of reasons, particularly international treaties and the nervousness of some of my colleagues, particularly toward the end of the debate. However, we did write a long report. In it, we mentioned you, our colleagues in the House of Commons.

After a lengthy discussion of all the points I've just raised and after suggesting a few amendments, including one about which I am very proud, to correct once and for all the ban on growing hemp, we invited the House of Commons to establish a joint committee to study the scientific facts and knowledge required to implement a public policy on illegal drugs, outside of the pressures involved in passing a government bill.

That was contained in the report, which the Senate passed. We did not expect an immediate response from the House of Commons, and then there was a delay caused by the election in 1997. As the months went by, I had become interested in this issue and in the fall of 1998 I decided it was time to reopen the debate, at least in the Senate. I asked Dr. Diane Riley from the University of Toronto to prepare a report for my Senate colleagues that would be straightforward and clear enough to inform them about the illegal drug situation in Canada.

As a matter of fact, I have brought along a few copies of the report. Some of you may have already seen it, because we have posted it on the committee's Web site.

I distributed this report to my colleagues and at the same time there was a motion to establish a Special Senate Committee to thoroughly review the whole issue, and particularly the facts underlying our public policy on illegal substances.

Why has the mandate been changed? The reason is that we are now involved in the first of two stages. My colleagues and I agreed to start by reviewing the whole issue of cannabis in its context. The words “in its context” are quite important. I thought it was illusory to think we could study one drug to the exclusion of all others. That would be like studying alcoholism, but looking at wine drinkers only.

The words “cannabis in its contex” mean that we are focusing primarily on cannabis, but also on all the medical, sociological, psychological and cultural factors involved. The treaties, which are not limited to the use and control of cannabis, which also touch on other substances, are also examined occasionally, but in the first phase of our work we are focusing chiefly on cannabis. If my Senate colleagues agree, in the second phase, we will study the other substances.

So we are in the first stage of our work, and my colleagues on the committee have agreed to a work plan. This document is available on our Internet site, but I would be pleased to answer any more specific questions you may have about the structure of our work plan.

• 1545

Our plan provides for a two-part review of cannabis. The first part is what we call the knowledge phase. The idea is to inform ourselves, to dig up information and assemble it. We want to become better informed through expert testimony and the work of our research director. The idea is to bring together this rigorous information. I insist on the word “rigorous ”. At some point, you may become exasperated with my overuse of this word, but I do believe this is the only way of dealing with the issue seriously.

So part one of our study involves assembling rigorous knowledge on the issue of illegal drugs, particularly cannabis. Part two, which should happen in the spring of next year, will involve a dialogue with Canadians, because an important part of our mandate is to share the information we collect with Canadians to foster what we hope will be an informed debate. The reason you are here at this table and that your institution has passed an order of reference to establish the committee is that there is a public interest in having Parliament review this matter.

All Canadians, or almost all Canadians have an opinion on it. Is this an informed opinion? We think this is where we and you have a role to play. It is important that Canadians have an opinion on the subject and it is important that their opinion be properly informed. In order for people to seriously question whether there should be an alternative to existing public policy on the control of illegal drugs, they must be able to direct the debate. Unfortunately, this is not often the case, and it certainly was not the case in 1908, when our Parliament passed the first prohibition act, nor was it the case in 1923, when the use of cannabis was prohibited.

I've already said a great deal. I presume you have some questions. I do not know whether my colleagues would like to add—

[English]

I know you don't want to talk.

[Translation]

Dr. Sansfaçon reminds me of an important point. One of the focuses of our work from the beginning has been the need to review the guidelines that must come into play in the introduction of a public policy on illegal drugs. After discussing this with some senior officials whom I will not name, I must tell you that they are very anxious to read this report. Why? It is quite possible that there are no such guidelines for the development of legislation or a policy on such an emotional issue.

Systematically, since 1908, particularly in the last 50 years, the Parliament of Canada has regularly had to amend, change or completely reform the legislation on the control of illegal substances, without ever having had a guiding principle. We can imagine what it might be, but that would not help us understand what moulded this public policy. For this reason, an important focus of our work is to include recommendations about what these guidelines should be and the respective influences of these principles.

• 1550

[English]

Blair, a few words on the...? No.

You know, we're working on a very tight budget, and if we're able to do that, it's because we have Blair with us, making sure that....

[Translation]

Would you like to add something, Daniel?

[English]

It's your chance.

[Translation]

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon (Research Director, Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs): Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to add a few words, first about what Senator Nolin has just mentioned about the guidelines.

We realized, for example, in the case of the Le Dain Commission Report in 1972, that despite the significant and innovative research effort that was made, the committee was unable to make unanimous recommendations. It could be said that to some extent, research results can be used to support any point of view.

That is precisely why the committee decided it was essential to reflect on five major guidelines, namely, what is the role of the government in a drug policy, what is the role of the criminal law, what is the role of science, what is the role of public health principles, and fifth, what is the role of ethical consideration? In all cases, the idea is to provide information for the interpretation of this knowledge we assembled. From there, we will eventually be able to draw some conclusions about what the research means in terms of public policy.

As to the focus on knowledge, the research itself, we are trying to cover five major themes. First, biomedical aspects, that is pharmacology, particularly of cannabis and of drugs in general. Second, there are the socio-cultural aspects in the broad meaning of the term, including criminological aspects. For example, what is the relationship between drugs and crime? What do we know about the effects on prevention or treatment? Third, there are national legal aspects, that is the evolution of the legislative provisions in Canada, in their historical and political context, but also in their international context. Fourth, there are the aspects related more specifically to international treaties and conventions. The final research focus has to do with public opinion and the development of public opinion.

These are the five research areas we are trying to cover, chiefly by hearing from expert witnesses, and by commissioning a number of research reports that summarize the existing literature. Unlike the period when the Le Dain Commission was doing its work, there is now an impressive knowledge base on illegal drugs both nationally and internationally. So we are trying to get summaries of this material, that are as rigorous and objective as possible and that identify both the strength and weaknesses of this knowledge base.

Those were the only comments I wanted to add at this point. Thank you.

The Chair: And the clerk?

[English]

A voice: He's silent.

Mr. Blair Armitage (Clerk of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs): I'll fill in any holes that may exist.

The Chair: It's fun to have the clerk on the other side having to be a witness.

Mr. Blair Armitage: Not so much fun for me.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sorenson, five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for coming today.

Monsieur Nolin, you said you got a taste for studying this problem. I guess I could ask you how you got that taste, but I appreciate that you did and that you recognized the severity of what you're going through there. I congratulate you for your initiative. We look forward to hearing a report from the Senate on this.

We have a national drug strategy. We've heard different people come to this committee and talk to us about it. My first question would be, in your opinion, are we winning? You said part of the strategy was not for prohibition, it was to reduce use and all this. In your mind, in your conception, do you think we're winning in that strategy? That was a question we asked the people in charge of the strategy.

• 1555

I'll just hit a few more things. The first part of your report is examining, collecting knowledge on illegal drugs, especially cannabis. I could ask my House leader, I could ask different people in the party—I'm a new member. Is some of that information and that knowledge available to us, to myself personally, right now?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Okay. If you want to talk on that, I then have one more question. Are we winning the strategy? Are we winning the game?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Would you first keep in mind—and I think it's important, though I forgot to mention it—that my colleague and I, with a lot of respect for the institution I'm working in, were trying to be non-partisan in our approach to that discussion. So if in the course of my testimony, or whenever you hear me speak, I say something against the federal government, that label could be put on the previous government or on the present government. I wanted to say that before answering your first question.

To be honest with you, there's no drug strategy any more.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: We had a group that came and said there's a $33 million budget to create a drug strategy.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes, 1988. The problem with that drug strategy was that there were a lot of words in it, but the actions were not supported by the words—the reverse.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But, Mr. Nolin, when they came here, they said there was no way to judge whether or not we were winning. The strategy seems to be moving ahead, they seem to be doing it, they're spending $33 million. They seemed to think everything was all right.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It's not all right. There are bits and pieces of mandates. I cannot give you a clear, definite answer to that, but there's one individual who will give Parliament a very clear analysis, at least from her angle, the Auditor General. In December she's going to table a report on the money spent on that supposed strategy. If there's a strategy, there are objectives. If there are objectives, we're going to be able to parallel the objectives and the amount spent to achieve those objectives. So it will be interesting to see what's going to be in that report. I think we should hold our breath and wait.

I would like to say, yes, there's a strategy. There is action. Of course, the health minister is responsible for, first, the implementation of Bill C-8, but that's not what I call a strategy. What are the objectives?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You say there's action, but no strategy. As you see this, everyone is running around, there are things happening, there are meetings, money is being spent. But Canada's in trouble. Basically, what I'm hearing from you is that we have a problem.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Trouble is too big a word. What is our objective?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Your objective as a—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: No. What should be the objective of a strategy? To reduce harm? One of your colleagues can testify from her own backyard to the harm created or generated there. So is it working only on harm reduction? Definitely not.

• 1600

We can look at the problem from another angle. Should that strategy only look to illegal substances? What about the young aboriginal attitude towards sniffing substances that are very legal? If you want to read about a country that has adopted a real drug strategy, go on the Internet, or go to our website first, and you'll read the testimony of various witnesses on the Australian experience. They were probably where we are now a few years ago. Guess what? A Canadian advised them to adopt that strategy. I strongly recommend that you invite that witness to your hearings.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Do you think prohibition in some communities is the goal we should reach for? For example, I have—it's kind of tongue-in-cheek—penitentiaries in my riding. Many people go into the penitentiary not on drugs and come out addicted.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We know that. And it's totally prohibited. Prohibition is too much of a catch-all. If it's prohibited, we're safe, we're okay, we can go back home, we've done our job. It doesn't work like that.

Do you have kids? I'm sure you have kids. I'm sure there are some specific—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'm pretty sure I have kids.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —things you've told them—don't do it. Are you totally convinced that they're not doing that?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I have kids too.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My children are under the age of nine, so thus far, yes. But you're right, we're all concerned.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: You understand my point.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I do.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Prohibition should not be an end. Of course, there are social behaviours that must be prohibited, and we must put all the effort of the state into making sure those prohibitions are respected, because of the harm caused to the general population. But I'm not sure we can trace that as an almost straight line in the drug problem. I think, and I'm not the only one, that prohibition is not a way to go on the drug front.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. There's a phone there, if you want to check on the kids.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for appearing before the committee, Mr. Nolin. I congratulate you on the work you have done so far and the work that is continuing. I think you can give us a fairly broad overview of the situation, given the witnesses you have heard from.

As you say, there are a number of considerations. There are legal considerations... both nationally and internationally... and health and social considerations as well. I would like to know whether you have examined the model developed in Belgium. It is a type of decriminalization that Canada could consider for a pilot project in which simple possession of marijuana would be allowed, provided the individual is not considered a social hazard. We have to ensure we understand what is meant. If we say that people are not allowed to exceed a certain blood alcohol level, why would we allow them to have an excessive level of tetrahydrocannabinol in their body?

I would like to know whether this is one of the possibilities you are studying and whether it could be done here in Canada, as a pilot project.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I'm going to hazard a personal opinion here. First of all, you will understand that since we have not yet written our report, it would be unadvisable for me to give you an ex cathedra opinion.

I have met with the Belgian Minister of Health. She spoke at length about her political experience in starting with a major project and ending up with... We are told the politics is the art of the possible, and that is very true.

• 1605

The Belgian public guideline on cannabis... Look, the committee is not ruling out any solution. I would even add that prohibition is one of the alternatives we are going to study. Some witnesses have tried to show that our prohibition efforts were feeble, that we had only a half-way approach, and we were not doing enough.

In fact, we will soon be hearing from some American witnesses who will no doubt confirm what other witnesses have already said. So, as you can see, we are going to examine the whole range of alternatives. Specifically, so that everyone understands correctly, private, personal use is tolerated in Belgium. In other words, there is not a law, but there is a government directive stating that when people are in their homes, in a private place, among adults—and the directive does specify that this applies to adults only, that there should not be any minors nearby—cannabis use for personal reasons is tolerated. Such an action will not have any criminal implication.

I think we will have to hear from Belgian witnesses in a few years or months to find out whether the experiment has proven useful. I do not see why it would not be an interesting experiment for the Belgians, as was the Dutch experiment. The recent experiments in Spain, Portugal and Italy will doubtless be interesting for the people of these countries as well.

I think we have to be careful when we compare the European experience with the North American experience. We cannot transpose their drug use culture to ours. When we try to compare demographic or sociological data on drug use, we discover quite quickly that the rates of drug use and the reasons for drug use are different in Europe from what they are here. Drug use rates in North America are comparatively huge, particularly among students, even though we recently had a French woman testifying before the committee, who showed us that the rates of drug use among young people in France and the use pattern were similar to those found in the Quebec adolescent population, for example, because there are some specific studies on the Quebec student population. So the rates of drug use are much lower in Europe. France is the country with the highest rates of drug use—around 6% of the population. The figure in Canada is around 10%. So you can already see that we are talking about two different worlds. We cannot make a blanket statement about what people think. We have to analyze particular population groups. Examining drug use rates does not tell the whole story. We must also look at the environmental factors involved, and which drugs are being used.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: One of the problems mentioned often regarding the possible decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is the whole issue of international conventions and treaties. Could you tell us what you have heard about this problem?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: The international legal context deserves very close scrutiny. First, and this may surprise you, it is not true that the treaties prevent us from passing legislation. The laws in Europe, which lean the most toward decriminalization, were allowed. The treaties do not prevent this. As you can see, the treaties must be read very thoroughly and in great detail to discover without doubt that they offer an alternative to prohibition. We have to look at the options available. We are certainly reviewing this. As Dr. Sansfaçon said, that is one of the focuses of our research. In fact, the Library of Parliament has already produced a very good report on this subject, and I would recommend you read it.

• 1610

I forgot to answer one of your questions. All the information we receive from witnesses or in the form of written documentation is available on the committee's Web site. There are also approximately 150 Internet links that we try to keep up to date. There is a tremendous amount of information available, but we try to limit the number of Internet links to 150. We chose the ones we considered the most rigorous—there is that word again—the ones that adopted the most interesting approach. I do not want to judge the sites, but there are some we could not avoid, such as the American government site. We thought it was important to include it in our list. However, I do not want to make any judgment about the way they process information.

The Chair: Ms. Davies, please.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

First, Senator Nolin, thank you for coming today.

I think the subject we are getting into is so huge that one of the challenges is even trying to focus how to do credible work and get to a conclusion that will actually move us forward. This committee has just begun, but one of the concerns I have is that it is so easy to get drawn into a debate about how many guards we have at border crossings and what's happening with drugs coming through. You can get almost sidetracked down so many different corridors on this issue, because it is so vast.

It seems to me that one of the central things your committee has tried to look at and I think we have to look at is the impact of prohibition. Many people forget that alcohol was prohibited and the harm that caused with organized crime. Criminal activity is just enormous—our movies are full of it, for one thing.

I know some of the witnesses you've had at your committee have been really excellent people, like Benedikt Fischer, Bruce Alexander, Pat Erickson, Neil Boyd from Simon Fraser University, Eugene Oscapella. These are all people who, I think, approach the issue and examine it by also looking at what the impact of prohibition has been, understanding that the reality we're facing is that in many ways it is the prohibitionist policies themselves that are now causing greater harm than the drugs that are illegal. So I wonder how your committee has tackled that. That is one question.

Second, the Senate committee has done excellent work, and now we have this committee starting up. Your final report, I believe, is to go to the Senate in August 2002. In what ways do you think the two committees can collaborate and work in a complementary way, so that we're actually not working at cross purposes? Maybe that's not possible, I don't know, but I would hope that as we go through our work, we may be able to arrive at a point where we are working in some sort of cooperative fashion. Because you've been at it longer in a committee sense, maybe you have some thoughts on that.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Don't forget that we first invited you to be part of a joint committee.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I understand that.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: There are various facets to your question. Of course, I was looking at you when I referred to what some of your colleagues are witnessing every day—

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —the harm caused to our population by prohibition laws.

• 1615

I suggest that you read the research plan we've adopted, and then you will understand. Definitely, we need to look at efficiency, and efficiency means looking at all the consequences we can evaluate of the actual system or policy.

Ms. Libby Davies: As it is now?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: As it is now.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes.

That's exactly what Dr. Riley was doing in 1998. But we have to go beyond that.

I was a hammered by some who are monitoring every word and step we're making when I said publicly one day that it would be politically impossible for Canada to think that it could move alone, without trying to understand what would be the reaction of our southern friends and neighbours. When we're looking at the actual spectre of our policy, we cannot isolate ourselves from the Americans. And that is part of our way of looking into the consequences of prohibition. I invite you to read our research plan.

All the witnesses you've referred to are credible, and they've all tried, probably succeeding, to convince the committee that prohibition is not at all a proper alternative. But we have a lot of respect for those who are not properly informed. Many Canadians are not. They have an opinion, but they don't know what you know. They need to know that. We need to share with them those facts.

And coming to the last part of your question, of course we must share the effort. We're paid to do that. I think it would be important for the two clerks and your chairperson and me to sit down and try to find ways to support each other. One thing, from the top of my mind, is the dialogue with Canadians. There's no need for us to discuss future policy if they are not part of the discussion. That's why phase two of our process is important.

I have to respect the mandate my colleagues in the Senate have given to the committee. We have to first look at cannabis in its context. Other drugs are involved in the study, but mainly we're looking at cannabis, and we'll do the others after that.

Your concern now is much more the other drugs?

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Cannabis is minor, not even a problem in your riding.

The dialogue with Canadians is probably where your committee would be the most effective, because it's your job to be in touch with your people. Right there you have access that for me is not a natural resource. We're going to do it, and we'll try not to have a committee type of sitting when we have those discussions with Canadians. We'll try to be creative, and it's going to be up to this gentleman to invent those ways to have a proper interchange with Canadians.

Mr. Blair Armitage: I keep fighting with my chairman.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: He keeps wanting to have that type of setting.

But we can definitely undertake to share efforts on that.

Ms. Libby Davies: To go back to the first question very briefly, I agree with you, the influence from the U.S. policy is immense. We've had stories in British Columbia where even judges are reacting to statements from the State Department about how courts are being soft or—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: And the State Department reacting to judges.

Ms. Libby Davies: That's right. And they're criticized.

• 1620

I understand that, but it seems to me that one of the things both committees have to tackle is to break down the myths and the stereotypes, to find a way to broaden public education and understanding, particularly by looking at what has been done successfully in other jurisdictions, even under the international covenant we're a signatory to as well.

We're told so often that prohibition or the war on drugs is the only way, and it's abstinence, and yet, I think the evidence that's coming out of Europe and Australia, as you mentioned, is showing a very different kind of model that is being successful. I hope that's one area where we could work together, to look at what the barriers are to dealing with the huge amount of propaganda we get from that American policy and how it affects what we do, leading us to believe there's nothing else we can do.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: But you know, we can send them back the statistics we have on them, and they have those statistics. Guess where in the world the use of drugs is the greatest? It's there.

Ms. Libby Davies: Exactly.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We have to go beyond that. It's not by attacking them or telling them they're bad. It's like saying to someone who's against your opinion, you're wrong, I don't want to talk to you. I don't think it's the proper way to look at a solution, because basically, what we want is to find something for our people, to convince a government to adopt a policy that respects everybody. So it's not by saying, you're wrong, I'm right, and I don't want to hear what you're saying. That's why we're open.

One thing I haven't mentioned to you is that we're only a committee of five. Let me tell you, for a chair it's perfect. With a quorum of two, it's fantastic. It's important to have flexibility. I have asked of my colleagues who requested to be part of the committee basically one thing, open mindedness. Don't come and sit around that table closed-minded or with preconceived solutions or ways to look at the problem. Open your mind, and be rigorous. Those are the only two—and it works.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Davies.

In fact, in regard to cooperation, we've been trying to adjust our schedule based on some of the information we've received from the Senate committee, to make sure we're not confusing Canadians or following hot on your heels to various places. I can assure you, Senator Nolin, it's been quite refreshing how open-minded this committee is so far.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC/DR): I must tell you that there was some confusion around when our House committee was established. There must have been some support for the idea of establishing a joint committee, however, unfortunately, partisan political considerations came into play. The idea was to include people from the other place on the committee. However, when our committee looks at the work you have undertaken, we feel we are going nowhere for the moment. Some people give us the impression as well that we may be trying to duplicate your work.

Since your work is quite advanced, perhaps in 2002 the idea of a joint committee might be reconsidered. That is my personal preference. I think that people on this side can appreciate the work that has been done in the other place. That is my personal opinion, but as you were saying, Senator, the range is so broad, that even we have difficulty.

When I explain why I am a member of this House of Commons committee, I can tell young people that it is not just about pot, that we'll be talking about more than just pot. People ask me what we will be discussing. We are going to be talking about drugs, about opium. Then people want to know if we will be discussing drugs such as Ritalin or Valium, for example.

So, as you can see, the name of the committee is so broad that people can give us some very specific labels, somewhat thanks to you, Senator, and your committee. People are going to say quite simply that we are duplicating the work being done on cannabis.

• 1625

I have a question for you, Senator. When did your committee begin its hearings?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We began our hearings during the previous Parliament, last September. We had to stop for the election, and we resumed our work in November.

Mr. André Bachand: Have you travelled very much so far?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: The only place we have gone is Toronto.

Mr. André Bachand: Do you intend to travel a great deal?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Our intention is to... We are not leaving Canada. We impose that restriction on ourselves. However, we are having our researchers travel. We think it is more important to have witnesses come to us; it is less costly. We are bringing in international witnesses. We have social, criminal, political and geographic theme days. We had a French day. We will be having an American day, just as we had a day on drug pharmacology. We will definitely be having a Swiss day because the Swiss experience cannot be disregarded. That is how we are breaking down our work. So we are travelling.

We are in the knowledge-gathering phase of our work. It may sound a little pompous for me to describe it that way, but I cannot find a more appropriate term to describe the work we are doing at the moment. The knowledge phase is taking place chiefly in Ottawa. We decided to travel to Toronto and Vancouver. We are not seeking to leave out Montreal, but as a Montrealer myself, I have access to witnesses from Montreal, and I did not want the committee to travel there. However, in the course of this knowledge phase, it is interesting for the committee to hear from witnesses from Ms. Davies' region, Vancouver, and from Toronto. The committee has already gone to Toronto, and we will be going to Vancouver soon.

Mr. André Bachand: I see. We are planning to go there in December if the Board of Internal Economy—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —approves your budget?

Mr. André Bachand: Roughly speaking, it is a budget of about one million dollars. What I like is that the chair did say that there would be a meeting if—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes, of course.

Mr. André Bachand: —at some point we can combine our work or complement our work. That would be very good.

Is your objective to come up with a bill next year?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I can answer that question easily. Our objective is not to come up with a bill. Our objective is to give the government and our Senate colleagues a critical path we hope they will adopt. We want to tell them what should influence public policy and make certain recommendations. Our ambition is certainly not to produce a bill. We eliminated that option during the debate on the motion. First of all, it seems to us that a bill responding to an international treaty must be a government bill. It is up to the Government of Canada to decide whether or not it should adopt a national policy, and I emphasize the word “national” without playing on words or without winking at my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I use the word “national” in the Australian sense. Australia has a government structure similar to ours, with provinces. The Australians have adopted a national policy which ensures an effective partnership between the national and provincial levels of government. That does not exist here.

Mr. André Bachand: This will be my last question, Madam Chair. You have touched on it already, Senator. Is your committee in touch with the provinces of Canada regarding matters relating to health, social services, and so on?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Not as much as we would like.

Mr. André Bachand: I see.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Not as much as we would like, but we are quite satisfied with—

Daniel, perhaps you could add something.

• 1630

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: Yes, I think we can say that to a large extent we try as far as possible to have working relations that allow us to benefit from the knowledge produced particularly by those provinces with organizations involved in addiction prevention and knowledge about drugs. I am thinking of the CAMH in Toronto, for Ontario, and the Comité permanent de lutte à la toxicomanie for Quebec. These organizations also produce knowledge. So we try to maintain fairly close working relations with them. In addition, we are planning to devote one day of hearings to the situation in the provinces.

Mr. André Bachand: Perfect. Thank you very much, senator.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, please.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Bachand made reference to the committee's budget. I want to point out to Mr. Bachand—and I hope he's listening carefully—that we met yesterday in camera to discuss a draft budget, and there have been no conclusions reached on our budget. You seemed to be very clear in public in your statement, and I just wish you would accord some courtesy to colleagues who review budget matters in camera. I hope you'll consider that in the future. That's not a question, that's a statement for the record.

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair—and I accept your comment, sir—what I was saying was quite positive, in a sense, that he needs to be accepting this today from the Internal Board of Economy. But what I was wishing is what Madam Chair was saying, that both committees should lean towards more work together. That's it. But it's well taken, sir.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

Senator Nolin, welcome to our special committee. It's a relatively rare thing that the Senate will come to the House or the House will go to the Senate for these purposes, so it's refreshing to see a relatively young senator—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I have to comment on the word relatively. Where does it start?

Mr. Derek Lee: Relative to the context in the senate, for sure.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: You would be surprised.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): He's 74.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Derek Lee: This should be a good experience.

I was interested in your description of your committee's approach to policy change. It sounded very sophisticated to me. You and your colleagues in the Senate are hoping to be a catalyst in policy change, perhaps hoping to influence policy-makers, policy-drivers, presumably in government, including members of Parliament as well. I think it's probably fair for me to say that the House of Commons is a bit more sanguine, a bit more activist than influencing.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It should be.

Mr. Derek Lee: So we might see our role as being more directly targeted at those who make the policy and draft the legislation, even seeing ourselves sometimes as drafters of legislation. And I suppose we might turn our minds at some point in this exercise to drafting something. I don't know. Other committees of the House have done it. So I appreciate those subtle distinctions, and I think you've articulated them well.

I too, like other members, have some concern about duplication of effort in the exercise you're doing and the exercise we're doing. I don't know whether actual organic collaboration is possible. If it were possible, with a view to cost-effectiveness, I'd certainly want to pursue the possibilities. And when we finish, our reports are going to be almost coincident, within a few months of one another. I guess there's no way of bringing those together, and we might come to different conclusions. You never know. The House and the Senate might come to different conclusions.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Perhaps I could comment on your first remarks.

• 1635

As one of my colleagues keeps saying, I was there. In 1996 I would have been happy to.... The invitation was extended to the health committee of the House of Commons. Between 1996 and 1998-1999, not only I, but many of my colleagues, because most of the discussion was not on the floor of the Senate, but much more in the corridors of the Senate, came to the conclusion that maybe the only place where we can discuss that problem openly, with all the freedom needed to look at the situation, and not be afraid to express ourselves and sometimes even to shock public opinion was the Senate. So we were glad.

First, I must tell you my feelings when I heard that the House of Commons had finally decided to discuss the matter. I did as the judges in the Supreme Court do once in a while when they don't understand the real intent of the legislator—they read the debates. I too, when I read the motion, needed to understand more about the intent of the House behind the motion, so I read the debate. I was happy to finally have the House of Commons, openly, without fear, decide to really look into the situation, but reading the debate, I was not totally convinced that the open-mindedness needed to look at that problem properly was there. I would like to say, it's your baby, it's your thing,it's up to you, but of course, we're there to help. We've been there since 1996. We can differ on dots, but if there's no fear of backlash, I doubt that we're going to have different findings.

Mr. Derek Lee: I am totally unaware of any constraints this committee has. In fact, it's so open, so broad—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: No, I don't think the restraints are governmental. I'm not saying that.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, political restraints and others.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: More your constituents, or your.... That exists, let's face it.

Mr. Derek Lee: The House debate would have reflected views from various constituencies and quarters. The individuals on the committee are a narrower grouping, and as I look around, this group has a very objective view—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Good. I'm glad to hear that.

Mr. Derek Lee: —of the field. I think you and your colleagues would be reassured. That's my take so far.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Good.

Mr. Derek Lee: But with your actual targets, the Senate wanted you to deal primarily with cannabis, but your committee is going to try to look a little more broadly here after—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: After August. We are going to table our report in August 2002.

Mr. Derek Lee: I see, and then after you've completed....

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes. After the adoption of the report, it's going to be up to me to come back with another motion to grab the rest.

Mr. Derek Lee: I see. So we can, without fear, tackle the broader picture.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: You can. Go for it. I think you should have a longer timeframe.

Mr. Derek Lee: Perhaps.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Look, it's a bit of advice from me, but you need a little more time, unless you want to work three days a week on it. It's up to you. If I may, knowledge is, for me, the first priority. I'm privy to a proposed travel plan. It's good. It's good to talk with people and exchange ideas, but you need a learning curve, definitely. It's important.

• 1640

Mr. Derek Lee: I actually agree with you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blair Armitage: My chairman really wanted me to talk, so I found one I could talk on without being controversial.

I've worked on a lot of special joint committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. I've found that in long-term studies it becomes increasingly difficult for the two chambers to get their rhythms in sync for joint meetings. It's just a practical consideration. If it's something you want to pursue, you might want to talk to a few of your colleagues who have worked on special joints in the past and see how they have found it as a constructive forum for this kind of long-term special study. If they've worked really well on short-term things, like Term 17 and others, where you had tight timeframes etc., on the special studies you begin to break down, just because your rhythms are entirely different.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: As to my offer to exchange notes, there's no problem.

I'm happy to hear that it's objective. It needs to be rigorous, and hopefully, partisanship is left at the door. It would be very easy for any political organization around this table to take something and go for the election with it, accusing whoever. But it could be very damaging to the long-term effort towards what, I'm convinced, are the objectives of both committees.

The Chair: Thank you.

Try not to do any scheduling, Senator Nolin—Mr. Bigras has a heart attack every time.

[Translation]

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Oh, I see.

The Chair: It's not easy for the Bloc.

[English]

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It's two Mondays.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That's because we have a lot of committees.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Ménard, please.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I would also like to congratulate you for the serious approach you take to your work. I won't hide the fact that we are not as open-minded towards the institution you represent, but we certainly welcome you as individuals and respect the seriousness with which you are conducting your work.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: And you respect our age.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And I respect your age; you are not up there in years, but you are up there in our esteem.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are aware that our mandate is biased in a way that yours is not. Under the mandate given to us by the House of Commons, our goal is to find ways to reduce non-medicinal drug use. Some witnesses have already pointed out to us that we have a biased mandate. That is something we must keep in mind. Of course, every political party does not necessarily share the same degree of bias, but the mandate we received was to make recommendations with a view to help reduce the scope of this problem with the help of other levels of government.

Therefore, our starting point is that non-medicinal drug use is a problem. So we are not as open-minded as the Senate, as you pointed out in your presentation in describing your mandate. That is somewhat unfortunate. In my view, the mandate should be changed, but that's another story and we won't solve the problem by discussing it with you.

I have four brief questions. Can you tell us who sits on the committee? I don't think I can ask you about the content of your report, because you are held to secrecy. So I will ask you questions about the committee's direction. What kind of relationship will you draw between your mandate and issues of poverty? Will you establish a strong relationship or rather a neutral one, or even a very strong one, and how does one affect the other?

Second—and I'll tell you right away that as health critic I hold certain views—how do you think future recommendations could be made to the government, in view of the fact that there are many extremely vigorous anti-tobacco campaigns out there today? I think the question should be asked. I don't want to presume, but if on one hand people are saying that soft drugs should be decriminalized and on the other, these days, members of Parliament—and this is also the case for senators—have asked the government to promote anti-smoking policies, well, how do we deal with this apparent contradiction? Do you think this is a significant issue?

• 1645

Now for my last question. I feel that there is a bias in your research. I might even be forward and say that it may have something to do with Mr. Sansfaçon's background. Isn't there a strong bias in favour of a harm reduction strategy? I think it's a good thing, but isn't this bias always there in your research?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I will begin by answering your fourth question. It's the easiest. If you read it, it's because we did not highlight the issue enough. You are absolutely right.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's right.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We are interested in this matter for a simple reason: no one can take a stand against good faith and the public interest. When we clearly explain what harm reduction means, there aren't many people who say it's a bad thing and that we should not go ahead with it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There were some who spoke against it in the House. I won't name any names, but there were some.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: The first question was easy. Did you mean you wanted to know the names of the members of the committee?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: From Alberta, there is Senator Tommy Banks and from Ontario, there is Senator Colin Kenny.

Mr. Réal Ménard: All right.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: From Quebec, there are Senator Shirley Maheu and myself, and from Manitoba, there is Senator Stratton.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So there is no majority.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It's three against two.

Mr. Réal Ménard: All right, you have a majority.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes, but throughout the course of our work, there has never been—

The Chair: Three Liberals—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Three Liberals and two Conservatives.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you like to know who the Liberal senators are?

The Chair: Tommy Banks, Colin Kenny and Shirley Maheu.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Exactly.

There has never been any partisanship. Never. In fact, we all made sure that it would not become an issue. From the beginning, we made sure that partisanship would not poison our work. I don't have to tell you that the issue we are working on is potentially explosive. If someone threw a match, the whole thing could easily explode. But it would not be in the interest of Canadians to do this. We are very aware of the danger and we try to avoid it.

Regarding the issue of the link with poverty, that's one of the reasons why we travelled. It cost a lot for the committee to go to Toronto and Vancouver, but we went because it is difficult to grasp the full extent of poverty even as explained by an expert. It was a lot easier to understand after we changed into jeans and T-shirts and went out at night. After having heard from a bunch of local experts, we hit the street and visited a crack house, which is what the clerk and I did in Toronto, with much—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Were you buying?

Voices: No.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I will answer in the manner of Mr. Trudeau: do you mean in Canada or abroad?

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are not travelling abroad.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We won't be travelling abroad. No, it's important. There is a definite link to poverty. A little earlier, I was comparing the European and North American drug scenes. Poverty is oppressive and leads people to take drugs. This fact is contained in research papers, but you have to experience the reality yourself. There's nothing better than going on site to do this.

Regarding the issue of reconciling the two types of prohibitions, that's a very good question. It was your third question. There are prohibitions, including those for young people. On the one hand, it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, but minors who smoke are not, as far as I know, doing anything illegal.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's not an offence.

• 1650

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: States are not allowed to sell liquor to minors. But if you're at a Christmas party and you offer a beer to your 14-year-old nephew, you are not committing an offence, unless I'm wrong about Quebec's legislation.

As you can see, attitudes have changed slightly towards prohibition. But we are not quite there yet when it comes to drugs. In fact, we're not really there at all. Let's compare. If, at the end of this exercise, the only problem left to solve is the coexistence of regulations... In terms of tobacco and alcohol, I would not call it prohibition; I would call it regulation; regulated use.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with you.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes, go ahead, Daniel.

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: If you don't mind, I would like to address the fourth question you asked.

Mr. Réal Ménard: One could say that you were targeted pretty directly.

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: A bit.

Under the research program, there is room for every field of study and, in that sense, there is also room for a harm reduction policy, but I feel that the proposed research program and the issues raised therein are not biased in favour of a given public policy. Under the research program, we will study issues affecting our knowledge of the effects, practices, trends and other factors pertaining to illegal drugs, cannabis in particular, as well as, when relevant, certain aspects of harm reduction.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Please understand that I asked a flattering question which, I may also add, was highly enthusiastic.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We try to be very objective in our approach.

For instance, when I met a group of policemen from Quebec this summer, I told them that prohibition was certainly one of the options we should reconsider. Perhaps our approach to prohibition could be improved. Maybe Americans are right. Perhaps there is not enough political will or effort to prohibit use.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It seems clear to me, in terms of the organization of your work, that when you table your report in August—

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: —if it is the will of the Senate, of course, you will continue your work to gain a wider perspective on the drug issue.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes. In fact, if you read the first mandate, the first order of reference—

The Chair: You have already had 11 minutes. I'm sorry, but I must stop you here.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: That's a real rule. You are ostracizing me. I will finish.

What was your last question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: After August, you want to extend the work of the committee to drugs as a whole.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: In the former Parliament, the first mandate of the committee covered all drugs. When we came back after the election, my colleagues felt, and I agreed with them, that we should focus on cannabis in the short term, rather than take three years to study the entire drug issue, because in my view, this mandate should... I understand that it is more difficult for the House of Commons to give a committee a three-year mandate, but this seems to be a more serious approach for the Senate. I agreed to reduce the mandate to 18 months and to focus solely on cannabis, but that we revisit—

You have to read both to understand the reasoning of the other place, as you said.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I am not a lawyer, but I think that in Ontario, it is illegal to give alcohol to a minor.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: To serve a minor.

The Chair: To serve a minor in your home, but that type of situation does not often end up before the courts.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I know that it is illegal for a Quebecker to buy wine in Ontario and to drink it in Quebec, but these things happen.

The Chair: Yes, because of interprovincial trade barriers.

• 1655

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Earlier, in response to a question, I was saying that a national policy cannot be created through the compartmentalization of jurisdictions. A concerted effort has to be made.

Regarding the financial aspects, we will soon find out what the existing federal policies are costing us. The Auditor General is producing a report on this subject in December. That will give us some idea. I look forward to seeing the results, because beyond criminal sanctions, I believe we really need co-operation, because this is a social problem at the outset. This is borne out by the phenomenon of the abuse of perfectly legal substances by young natives. It is not against the law to sniff glue. Where does the problem come from? The problem is not the substance. It is the abuse of it. And why is this a problem? Therefore, we have to look beyond the abuse of it in order to understand, and there we are opening up an issue of a very social nature. You can see that it is not the sole responsibility of the federal Parliament to find solutions.

This is why I would recommend that you read up on and find out about the Australian experience. The situation in Australia is much like ours. There is a high proportion of natives in Australia. Right away, that is a similarity.

The Chair: Yes, and there are a lot of funds allocated to prevention programs, but that is in the provinces, and each province has a different program.

Mr. Bertrand, and then Ms. Scherrer, please.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: My member of Parliament.

The Chair: We invited him today.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: When I am living here, he is my member of Parliament.

The Chair: Oh, yes.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would also like to welcome you, Senator. I must tell you that I am unfortunately not a regular member of this committee. As you can see, they came to get me from the other side—

A voice: I'm sure that now you are very interested.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes, very interested.

The Chair: I am very pleased to see you here.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I have three short questions to ask you. First of all, regarding the national strategy that you referred to earlier, you mentioned an amount of $33 million that has been spent to date, is that right?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Mr. Sorenson said that.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Sorenson said that. I would like to know if those $33 million represent what has been spent since 1988 or whether this is a recurrent annual amount.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: In 1996, in response to a specific point raised by Mr. Sorenson, the national strategy was not renewed. Some programs remained in place, and the federal government continued to be concerned with the drug problem in 1996, but the fine national strategy on illegal drugs came to an end in 1996.

We have financial data on the implementation costs of Canadian policies, but when we discovered that the Auditor General had undertaken a financial assessment of all of these programs as well, we said to ourselves:

[English]

I rest my case. Let's wait for the Auditor General.

[Translation]

They are in a better position than we are to go out and find the—

The Chair: And they also have a very big team.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: And sound budgets.

The Chair: Yes, more significant than the Department of Finance.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Secondly, Senator, I would like to go back to the Belgian experience. You mentioned that in Belgium, personal consumption of drugs is legal.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Between adults.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Between adults.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: In private.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: In private.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: And where do these people—?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It's illegal. But it won't be criminalized. It won't be penalized.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: It won't be penalized.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I specify this because—

Mr. Robert Bertrand: It is important to clarify it.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —this is how it will be handled.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: But where do these people buy cannabis?

The Chair: You want to know exactly where?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: No, no, no. We will take down the address.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It may be in Canada.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Robert Bertrand: But there isn't a chain of stores like the SAQ.

• 1700

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: No. The Belgian Minister of Health, whose name escapes me for the moment, had a much more detailed policy document that touched on the cultivation issue, amongst other things, but the political situation caused the State directive, which is now public, to be reduced to what I said earlier on. To supply it will be illegal.

Dr Daniel Sansfaçon: I would like to make one clarification, if I may.

Next December, in Utrecht, there will be a city conference on drugs at the request of the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands. Why?

Eighteen months ago, the Minister of Health of the Netherlands, with his colleague from Justice, as they are both faced with the same issue... You are aware that there are coffee shops, particularly in Amsterdam, but also throughout Holland, where one can buy a small amount of drugs: five grams is the maximum. But the sellers must be buying it from somewhere. And that would be on the illegal market. Therefore, they wanted to make it possible for the owners of the coffee shops to buy their supply directly from legal sources.

In the face of certain international pressures, the Netherlands have temporarily put this initiative aside. Reality is catching up with everyone, however, since everyone is faced with the situation in Europe. It is true for Spain, Italy, Belgium and now Portugal, where simple possession for personal use is being decriminalized. Reality is catching up with everyone. Therefore, throughout those countries, consumers are in the same situation where they will not be penalized, but they will have to buy drugs on a quasi-legal market, a market that is more illegal than legal, in fact. This is why there will be a city conference on drugs in December, in Utrecht, to try and pool the various cities' experiences and see what might be possible as a first step towards finding a solution to the problem, which is ongoing and recurrent in the countries that have decriminalized personal use.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: If I may add something, I would say that on the issue of controlling supply or legalizing supply, the whole aspect of quality control also comes into play, for the authorities who are wondering how useful this may be for them. These countries are having trouble getting out of the treaties you alluded to earlier, Mr. Bigras, and they are trying to fin some practical solutions. They do not want to confront international fora, and have a real debate on the substance of the treaty. They prefer decriminalization, and they prefer to keep certain prohibitions in their own legislation, but to decriminalize for reasons of law and order. But that eliminates the whole issue of quality control.

The problem Ms. Davies was referring to earlier concerning the prohibition era and alcohol—and we did hear testimony to this effect—was that prohibition brought about deaths, because alcohol, really... There was a reduction in consumption in the United States. If one was to be caught transporting 40 ounces of liquid, one might as well be caught with 40 ounces of alcohol rather than 40 ounces of beer. Therefore, beer drinking went down, but the consumption of hard and adulterated liquor went up. As a result of that, people died—

A voice: Poisoned.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —by drinking illicit liquor.

So, you can see that quality control disappears with prohibition, because if the government imposes prohibition, the public won't accept that the government, on the other hand, does quality control on illegal products. Each position is defensible, but you can't have both. That's why those cities are grappling with the issue of supply.

You had a third question.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes. In light of the events of September 11, do you feel that the multilateral coalition against terrorism—incidentally, we all know that terrorism is mainly financed by the sale of illegal drugs by Afghanistan and other countries—will slow down the flow of drugs into Canada?

• 1705

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I'd like to answer yes; but unfortunately I have to say no. Since September 11, there has been a myth that opium, for the most part, because Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of opium with 90% of world output—

A voice: Two thirds of its GDP.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: —is the way the Taliban funds its activities. That's not true. We heard from experts that... In fact, we will soon be focusing part of our work on the study of terrorism and drugs to try to understand how they interact. I would have liked to answer yes, but the price of a kilo of heroin in Afghanistan is not even close to what it costs in North America. Do you know what I mean? The math doesn't add up. But for now, that's not the issue.

Daniel, would you like to add something?

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: You could consult the work of Mr. Alain Labrousse, the former president and founder of the Observateur géopolitique de drogues, who is now an expert on drugs and addiction in France and who also studies the geopolitical implications of the illegal drug trade. He is an expert in the illegal drug trade and spoke before the Senate committee last May.

A voice: That's right, on May 27.

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: In fact, Mr. Labrousse was interviewed by a Le Devoir reporter not long ago. I think it was at the beginning of the week. In short, a kilo of unprocessed heroin which sells for about $250 US in Afghanistan has a street value of about $350,000 US on the American market. That's 10 times as much. So, it's not the producer who... But that's true for every type of drug. It's true for coca, poppies and even marijuana. The producer doesn't make the big bucks, it's the middlemen.

A voice: The pushers.

Dr Daniel Sansfaçon: And the middlemen are not usually or necessarily—this is yet another issue—involved in funding terrorist networks.

For instance, the mafia would not necessarily be interested in financing terrorists. But that's another issue. However, the data clearly shows that the production sites are not where the money is.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Other studies have revealed that terrorists have now taken over the underworld market, because that's where the money is, at the middlemen stage.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: The biggest slice of the profits.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much; those were good questions.

Mr. Bigras has a short question. He will be followed by Ms. Scherrer.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I also have a question with regard to September 11. There's a lot of talk about the creation of a North American security perimeter. I would like to know if the creation of such a perimeter would somehow prevent Canada from taking action. Canada has voiced some major concerns with regard to immigration. So, do you feel that a security perimeter would affect the flow of drugs?

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We agree that it's very hypothetical.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, we agree.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: There are a lot of “ifs.” So I will give you an opinion, some initial thoughts. In any event, Canada's hands are tied. What we can do, and what we're doing right now, is reflect, examine, study, discuss and produce paper. That's what we can do right now, and I think that's what we do well. In any event, we have introduced good mechanisms for becoming more aware of these issues.

To respond to your concern—and I share your concern—I would make the following wager. I am ready to bet that once we've done our work well, once we're informed, first of all, and then once we've shared this information with your constituents, with Canadians, they will have the information they need, and they will put pressure on government, not just Canadian governments, but also American governments. As you know, the people of Canada are not all that different from the Americans. Because of our communications environment, information is transferred easily. You are going to tell me that there is more information coming to us from the United States than there is going from Canada to the United States. You're right, and we should look at this specific problem.

• 1710

I am willing to bet that once the people have been adequately informed, they will respond quickly. I encourage you to keep on watching the committee's proceedings. We will be having some American witnesses very soon. Some experiments in this direction have begun in the United States, and it could be very interesting.

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I too am a tourist today. So, I'd like to ask—

A voice: You're going to come back.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Maybe, but I'd like to ask a question. I would like the committee members to be very frank with me and to tell me to go on to the next question if this is very redundant, if you've already discussed this a great deal before.

I was wondering particularly about the research methodology you use. I understand that there were two major steps in the process, namely collecting data from specific research that has been done, followed by consultations with Canadians.

I'd like to go back to the data collection stage. I would like to know a little bit about how the data is being collected, since you are studying a prohibited substance and no doubt it is more difficult to get the data in a scientific way. To my mind, prohibition must have an influence on consumption, an influence on the social impact and an influence on many other things.

My first question is as follows: How are you going to gather and compile your information on the health impacts? What is your research sample?

Secondly, in the final analysis, aren't you going to be comparing consumption in a location where the substance is prohibited, which in my opinion could lead to very different patterns of use, to consumption in other places where the substance is not prohibited? I think the patterns will be completely different, and I think it's a good idea to compare them.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: I'll touch on that issue, and then I'll let Dr. Sansfaçon conclude.

First of all, the topic for which there is the most information on the Internet is the whole issue of illegal drugs. There already is a lot of information. What is complex—and this is not the only complex part of the problem—is separating rigorous information from the more subjective information. That's Daniel's job, and perhaps I'm encroaching on his answer.

As for the issue of comparing the use of a product by a target group living in an environment of complete prohibition to the use of that same product by a target group living in a more permissive environment, the researchers do have access to such environments. There are places in the world where it is easier to consume this product. Dr. Sansfaçon made reference to Holland; there are other countries that are starting to come up. We already have access to valid statistics from Holland. Despite what many people say, or despite what some people say, the statistics we have on Holland are credible and rigorous, and we can compare them to statistics from other countries where consumption is totally prohibited.

Have I stolen all your—

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: No, no.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Fine.

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: First of all, the research program is essentially based on an attempt to summarize existing studies. We will see whether we succeed or not. At the very beginning, I was saying that when I presented an outline of the research program, unlike the period of time when the Le Dain Commission carried out its work, nearly 30 years ago, we now have a very broad range of knowledge about all aspects of drug use. In the past few years, for cannabis alone, there have been major reports on biomedical and biopharmacological aspects from the American Institute of Medicine, a major report from Switzerland, another from Belgium, two reports coming out of France and one coming out of Australia. So we've already had all that on these two aspects alone.

• 1715

So we have a broad range of knowledge that we can try to summarize under a number of headings.

However, when it comes to the specific situation in Canada, it is very clear—and this is one of the conclusions we came to very early on—that unfortunately, there is a tremendous shortage of information. This may be one of the consequences of not having a strong national strategy that has been renewed.

For example, we do not have up-to-date information on consumption trends within the general Canadian population. The last Canadian epidemiological investigation goes back to 1994.

As for consumption by youth, adolescents in school, Ontario is the only province that carries out systematic studies every two years. A few of the other provinces, including Quebec, do so from time to time, but not systematically.

So we are very short of information in comparison with all the other OECD countries when it comes to basic trends within the general population, and amongst teenagers in particular. So we have gaps too. Our Senate committee does not have the resources to conduct studies or have studies done to make up for these gaps. So, we are going to have to live with the situation.

The third thing I wanted to mention is that there are no countries where drugs are not illegal, and that includes the Netherlands and Switzerland. We cannot make them legal because of the international conventions.

However, the work done by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has shown quite clearly in the past few years that public policy has very little effect on consumption and usage trends within the population. Some countries are strict and have high consumption levels, such as the United States, whereas other countries are strict and have relatively low consumption levels, such as Sweden. In more liberal countries, such as the Netherlands, consumption is relatively high, whereas in Denmark, which is also quite liberal, consumption is relatively low. So there is no direct association between a particular public policy and consumption, which depends on an entire series of other sociocultural and economic factors. It would appear that poverty, living conditions and other factors have a much stronger influence on consumption than public policy does.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: And how are you going to make up for these gaps in information?

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: We are going to make recommendations on how to do the research in the future.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I see.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: We have not ruled out the possibility of issuing interim reports if we realize as we go along that it would be in everyone's interest for such a study to be done. Or we could issue an interim report specifically on that issue, or we could try to work behind closed doors to convince policy-makers that it would be in everyone's interest to have a national study done.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: According to several studies conducted in other countries, as someone mentioned earlier, the type of drug used is highly attributable to sociocultural factors.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: Yes, it is.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: In the end, we will go by studies conducted elsewhere and draw conclusions that do not reflect our reality at all.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: And people will be right in challenging that.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Okay.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: That is why we—

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: Allow me to say that there is nevertheless a knowledge base in Canada. It is limited and incomplete. But there is nonetheless a knowledge base. For example, we have a monitoring network called the CCENDU, the Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use, and I apologize but I do not know the name in French.

This network of 15 or 16 cities in Canada, which held its national conference last weekend in Ottawa, produces some data on use and trends. The data is limited. We must live with that for lack of better monitoring systems like those that exist in several countries, namely the United States, which identifies drug use trends by way of polls, surveys, etc. Although we do not have that, we do have something. It is not as if we had nothing at all, but we do not have data that will easily enable us to put together a national overview of the current situation, a picture, a snapshot, nor will this data enable us to put together a picture showing evolution over time.

• 1720

We must admit that there are some holes, but it is not as if we have nothing at all.

The Chair: What did you say about Sweden?

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: A repressive system.

The Chair: Oh, yes.

Dr. Daniel Sansfaçon: I would like to make a small clarification. The system strictly prohibits drugs. Sweden is aiming to achieve a drug-free society with an approach that is very explicit, very clear, and very strong, but we must bear in mind Sweden's sociopolitical background. It is a very tightly knit society, with very strong mechanisms for social solidarity and which, moreover, even with a highly prohibitive system, does not use criminal sanctions like the United States does, for example. It is a prohibitive system, but one that operates completely differently; it focuses to a much larger extent on prevention and treatment than on criminal measures. That is why Senator Nolin said earlier on that a prohibitive system could be a potential solution, but it would have to be applied differently. So some people will say that we should draw on the Swedish model. That's it.

The Chair: Yes, but the information I have is a bit different. I spoke to the minister. I told her that here at home, when someone has a joint, the police do not say anything. She told me that in her country, the police must always lay a charge.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: The end of that statement is not entirely correct. You are correct in saying that they do not accept it. The way the prohibition is dealt with is different. That is what is different.

The Chair: That is very interesting for members of the committee and for our tourists.

Thank you for having spent the afternoon with us. We are making history here in the Parliament of Canada. Thank you and keep up the good work.

If you have a copy of your agenda, perhaps you could share it with us.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: It would be a good idea for the two clerks to talk and exchange information. As they already know each other, that will not be a problem.

The Chair: Fine.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: If we need to put our ideas together, we would be pleased to do so, Madam. Thank you very much for the invitation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: And good luck in your work.

The Chair: Yes, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.