SNUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 22, 2002

¹

1535

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Commissioner Gwen Boniface (Ontario Provincial Police)

¹

1540

The Chair

Superintendent Morris Elbers (Ontario Provincial Police)

¹

1545

Commr Gwen Boniface

¹

1550

Supt Morris Elbers

Commr Gwen Boniface

Detective Staff Sergeant Rick Barnum (Ontario Provincial Police)

¹

1555

Commr Gwen Boniface

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

º

1605

Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson (Ontario Provincial Police)

º

1610

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

º

1615

The Chair

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ)

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1620

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

º

1625

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.)

Mr. Réal Ménard

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

º

1630

Commr Gwen Boniface

Ms. Libby Davies

º

1635

Commr Gwen Boniface

Ms. Libby Davies

Commr Gwen Boniface

Ms. Libby Davies

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

Morris Elbers

Ms. Libby Davies

Morris Elbers

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

º

1640

Morris Elbers

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.)

Commr Gwen Boniface

Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Derek Lee

Commr Gwen Boniface

Mr. Derek Lee

Commr Gwen Boniface

º

1645

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Derek Lee

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Derek Lee

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

º

1650

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Mr. Mac Harb

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Mr. Mac Harb

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Mr. Mac Harb

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

º

1655

The Chair

»

1700

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Commr Gwen Boniface

»

1705

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

»

1710

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

»

1715

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

The Chair

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

»

1720

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

Ms. Libby Davies

Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

»

1725

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

---

NUMBER 038

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 22, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I would like to bring this meeting to order.

    Pursuant to the order of reference adopted in the House of Commons Thursday, May 17, 2001, this committee is considering the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs. In fact, since last week, we also have been referred the subject matter of Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which relates to the issue of possession of marijuana.

    We are very pleased to have with us this afternoon, from the Ontario Provincial Police, the commissioner, Gwen Boniface, Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson, Superintendent Morris Elbers, and Detective Staff Sergeant Rick Barnum. I understand Officer Barnum is coordinating the presentation, and we're very pleased to have you all with us today.

    Colleagues, we have before us a copy of the presentation, although I think this is a little more voluminous than... and it's in both official languages. In terms of the presentation, they are top-lining most of it so we can get to questions and answers.

    Ms. Boniface.

    Commissioner Gwen Boniface (Ontario Provincial Police): Thank you very much.

    It's our pleasure to appear before you this day and hopefully offer you some information that will be relevant to your deliberations.

    I'd like to introduce a little bit of the background of the people with me.

    Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson is the head of drug enforcement for the Ontario Provincial Police. He has held this position since 1998 and has 17 years of experience in drug enforcement at all levels, including five years in a joint forces operation with the RCMP.

    Superintendent Morris Elbers was the deputy director of drug enforcement. He has spent almost half of his 26-year career in policing in drug enforcement.

    Detective Staff Sergeant Rick Barnum is our unit commander for our combined forces drug unit in central Ontario. He brings to this forum a decade of on-the-ground investigative experience in undercover work and a valuable perspective on what is happening today in our communities with respect to non-medical drug use.

    To begin, I'm just going to give you a very quick fact outline on the OPP so those of you who are from outside the province have a sense of who we are. We are one of North America's largest deployed police forces. We have 5,240 uniformed members, 1,800 civilian members, and an auxiliary unit of 875. We police a population of about 2.3 million. It increases to about 3 million in the summer, given that we do most of cottage country.

    We currently provide front-line local police service to 400 municipalities and first nations communities throughout Ontario. Our communities range in size from the town of Caledon, north of Toronto, with a population of just over 51,000, to more remote communities in the north, like Moosonee on the James Bay coast. Pickle Lake would be our furthest north detachment, a community of about 450 people.

    In addition, we have a provincial mandate that includes criminal investigations. To name just a few of the areas we have provincial interjurisdictional leadership for, they include such areas as motorcycle gang activities through our provincial squad, the provincial weapons special enforcement unit, and numerous drug enforcement teams across the province.

    Many of our drug enforcement teams work in joint forces operations in large urban centres such as Ottawa, Kingston, and Toronto, while other units are situated in smaller centres such as North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. The diversity of experience gained in working in a variety of locations, coupled with our provincial perspective, allows the OPP and our drug enforcement section to come before you today as seasoned experts in the fight against the illicit production, sale, and use of non-medical drugs.

    As the committee is well aware, current unique and comprehensive research papers and studies are hard to find dealing with rural drug use. We feel this is because the studies just do not seem to exist. Much of what the OPP will present to you today will be reflections of the experience faced by our police officers throughout the province.

    The issues of non-medical drug production, sale, and use present a serious crime problem in all corners of the country. This is also true in Ontario, as evidenced by a significant increase in the number of organized crime marijuana grow houses and the increase in the production and availability of Ecstasy, Special K, and methamphetamine. All of these issues will be addressed in this presentation.

    Along with the issues of non-medical drugs comes a nexus to other types of crime, such as break and enters, robbery, homicide. It is vital to understand the world of drugs and to be able to identify if the crime is caused by the user in an attempt to get money to buy drugs; secondly, if the crime is caused by the user because he or she has taken drugs; or if the crime is related to drugs by being committed by a trafficker in an attempt to control debts or territory. These distinctions must be made in order for the police and the public to effectively work together to battle the non-medical drug problem existing in a neighbourhood or town.

    We recognize that while law enforcement acts as a deterrent to drug trafficking and production, the long-term answer to the drug problem goes well beyond traditional law enforcement actions. With this in mind, the OPP directs its enforcement measures toward targeting mid- to high-level trafficking in local, regional, national, and international venues. We also actively support aspects of prevention and education. OPP members provide province-wide assistance in facilitating and directing non-medical drug users to clinics and centres for counselling and rehabilitation, and our uniformed members are provincial leaders in the delivery of educational programs, such as the drug abuse resistance education, or DARE, program, to school children in our province.

    We believe in a comprehensive approach to the non-medical drug use problem in Ontario and Canada. All agencies, including all levels of governments, courts, social agencies, police, and the public, need to harmonize their efforts to make a difference in this spectrum.

¹  (1540)  

    There is no doubt, we believe, that if addictive substances were legally introduced into our community, the impact on society in general would be overwhelmingly negative. Basic rules of supply and demand come into play; increase the supply of non-medical drugs and in turn you increase the demand for non-medical drugs. If non-medical drugs are legally purchased from a parking lot of a factory in Ottawa, or a high school in rural Ontario, or the intersection of a street in Collingwood, then people would all have access to the substances with the support of their governments.

    Non-medical drugs, by their very nature, are physically addictive, psychologically addictive, or both. We should not lose sight of what we see as the truth, and the truth is that non-medical drugs that are used recreationally ultimately hurt individuals and society. And this statement forms the foundation of a firm stance we take against non-medical drug use.

    We would like to direct our testimony today around three key issues we feel the committee should take into account and then offer some recommendations for your consideration.

    The Chair: Mr. Elders.

    Superintendent Morris Elbers (Ontario Provincial Police): On June 27, 1999, at 1 a.m., officers from Lanark County OPP, which is the Perth detachment, responded to a serious accident that occurred on Highway 7 east of Perth. When officers arrived, they learned that a red Honda Civic pulled out to pass two vehicles travelling ahead. While passing, the Civic hit a pickup, travelling in the opposite direction, head on. This collision caused a series of collisions. Once all the dust and debris had settled, five young people between 16 and 18 years of age were killed.

    Officers investigating the accident learned that the uninjured driver of the Civic had smoked marijuana prior to the accident. Blood tests taken on the driver confirmed that the driver had significant amounts of THC in his blood and no other intoxicants. The driver was charged with five counts of being impaired by a drug and causing death and five counts of dangerous driving causing death.

¹  (1545)  

    Commr Gwen Boniface: We know this committee is well aware that THC is the active ingredient in marijuana that produces the high for users. During the 1960s, marijuana reportedly had a THC content of 2% or less. In the new millennium, marijuana has taken on a bold new identity, delivering a THC content of, on average, 13% and sometimes as high as 30%.

    THC is also produced synthetically and used as a prescription drug. The producers attach extensive warnings to prescription users, including statements that THC is a psychoactive compound present in cannabis and that it is an abusable and controlled substance. Individuals are warned not to drive or operate heavy equipment when taking synthetic THC. Both psychological and physiological dependence have been noted in healthy individuals receiving the synthetic equivalent. While addiction is uncommon, it has been seen after prolonged high-dose administration. Such warnings attest to the harm that can result from THC use.

    In our view, marijuana is not in any way a harmless drug. Chronic abuse of cannabis is associated with decrements in motivation, cognition, judgment, and perception, but still it enjoys the unearned reputation of being non-addictive, friendly, and relatively risk free. Many of our youth see marijuana as a fun thing to do. A recent McGill University study indicated an increasing number of youth in Quebec attend high school while high on marijuana. Further studies confirm marijuana has a definite withdrawal syndrome associated with its use. We believe our young people are our future and we should protect that future.

    The detectives attached to the OPP drug enforcement section specifically investigate controlled drug offences such as trafficking, possession for purposes of trafficking, possession, production, and importation. These investigations are successfully accomplished in a number of ways.

    One of the ways is by using police officers in long-term undercover roles. Undercover officers serve the general public, police, and the entire justice community in a very unique way that is rarely reproduced by any other style of policing. They do this by gathering first-hand information in intelligence, pretending to be part of the drug subculture. These officers provide us with a very descriptive and clear picture of what is occurring in our neighbourhoods, towns, and cities. The picture these officers are painting is one that shows marijuana being purchased, used, and sold by young people on a frequent basis.

    The first-hand evidence clearly depicts marijuana as a drug that introduces users to the illegal drug subculture and the availability of other drugs such as Ecstasy and Special K. Ecstasy and Special K are specifically aimed at young people and are portrayed as harmless in the same way marijuana is, leaving our youth very vulnerable to non-medical drug use. We would point out that non-medical drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; we believe they are illegal because they are dangerous.

    Ontario is currently witnessing an exponential growth in indoor marijuana grow houses, projects spearheaded by organized crime groups. Much of the marijuana produced in these houses is quickly exported to the United States and then on to other markets. We are now known as a drug-producing nation simply because of the amount of high-quality marijuana produced within our borders.

    Organized crime groups have always survived and will always survive by providing black market services to individuals. When Prohibition ended in the U.S., organized crime continued marching on. We believe that if marijuana is legalized in Canada, organized crime will continue to march on.

    The OPP is constantly evaluating and fine-tuning the way we deliver our services. This includes the battle we have against marijuana producers and traffickers. We have taken the lead in delivering the message about marijuana to residents through the media, educational forums, and other venues such as service clubs and public forums. We enjoy the support of our citizens, who are now becoming clearly aware of the dangers of the elaborate marijuana grow houses and of the types of individuals these operations involve. We believe that the tide is turning and that the public is supportive of effective and efficient enforcement measures aimed at reducing marijuana production.

    For many years, outdoor marijuana grows have been a significant issue for members of the OPP. Outdoor marijuana producers continue to target remote rural locations as suitable sites to grow marijuana. We now lead a team of municipal and OPP members in an annual outdoor eradication effort in Ontario. We have found very innovative and efficient ways to battle outdoor marijuana production.

    Two years ago, as part of the provincial program, we added a leased helicopter to our eradication effort with a grant from the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. This was dedicated exclusively to outdoor marijuana eradication. The addition has proved to be a highly effective tool and was successfully repeated last year.

    Members of the eradication team have over the past two years seized approximately $900,000 worth of assets and property from illegal, large-scale growers. In essence, we have removed $155 million worth of marijuana from the market.

¹  (1550)  

    Further research from the outdoor eradication program shows that for every hour the helicopter is in the air, $255,000 worth of marijuana is pinpointed. The trend of simple or personal outdoor marijuana grows is all but gone. Today, drug unit detectives place the average value per plot at over $300,000.

    Supt Morris Elbers: In October of 2001 a provincial marijuana eradication team discovered this farm. It was being used simply for the cultivation of marijuana. Three men were arrested at the scene. This entire property has been seized by proceeds of crime investigators. It's a six-acre plot of land where 20,000 marijuana plants were grown.

    Commr Gwen Boniface: Although some studies suggest marijuana is harmless and that legalization, decriminalization, or a softened approach is the avenue to follow, we urge this committee to strongly consider the front-line perspective. Our information is directly from the streets of our province.

    The issues before the committee are of considerable importance, leading us to underline that the dual factors of availability and accessibility directly influence consumption. The direct role law plays in influencing these factors is enormous. We are committed to do our part by enforcing effective laws in this country and to help educate youth and citizens of this province as to the dangers of marijuana use.

    I would also like to draw your attention to the significant health and safety issues police officers--and in particular drug enforcement detectives--confront on a regular basis as they work to investigate the illicit drug production and trafficking in Ontario. Illegal drug production is lucrative and competitive; drug producers go to great and dangerous lengths to protect their investment.

    Drug producers today are protecting their commodities with lethal trap devices created specifically to seriously injure or kill anyone who gets too close to a marijuana field, a grow house, or clandestine land. This is of grave concern for any member of the public who might happen upon one of these, and it is most certainly an ongoing danger for our officers involved in front-line detection and investigation. The traps you can see on screen were found protecting outdoor marijuana grow operations in the province in the last two years.

    Detective Staff Sergeant Rick Barnum (Ontario Provincial Police): We have here a trap found surrounding a marijuana grow in London, Ontario. There were six of these individual traps. At the top you can see a hinge on the right; a wire was attached to this hinge. Walking into the marijuana crop would trip the wire, which would cause the hinge to release. This in turn would cause the nut and bolt to flip over to strike the nail on the left side of the board. Underneath the nail, at the bottom right of the screen, you can see a hole where a shotgun shell would go.

    On the next screen you can see that the shotgun shell is being placed into the hole. When it goes in, the mechanism is closed up. What you see in the bottom picture is a squash we tried the trap on to see whether or not it worked. Unfortunately for the squash, it did in fact work. There were six of those surrounding one marijuana grow.

    This is another, cruder trap we found surrounding a grow in Bancroft, Ontario. Walking up the trail toward the marijuana grow trips a wire. That piece of maple has a bunch of nails in it that will then fling out and hit the legs of whoever is approaching.

¹  (1555)  

    Commr Gwen Boniface: These are examples of the challenges drug enforcement officers face. We have done focus training for officers, providing appropriate equipment and sharing information about such devices among police services right across the provinces. Protecting our officers from the dangers inherent in drug investigations is a high priority.

    Fortunately, to date, in their efforts to detect and reduce the supply of illegal drugs in Ontario, no OPP officers have suffered serious injuries from these types of traps. But the committee should be aware that these devices for protecting their investment are only limited by growers' imaginations.

    Moving now to rave or club drugs, the past ten years have seen the emergence of rave club drugs in Canada. In 1996, 1,000 tablets were seized. That number increased to 10,000 in 1997; 70,000 in 1998; 400,000 in 1999; and more than 2 million in the year 2000. Such huge increases alarm policing agencies in all parts of the country. Ecstasy is the most popular of the club drugs, followed closely by GHB and Special K. It is important to note here that these drugs are marketed specifically to young people.

    As the most recent Ontario student survey shows, Ecstasy use increased from 0.6% in 1993 to 6% in the year 2001. Also prominent was the distinct use increase among grade 9 students, aged 14 to 15, from 2.3% to 7% between 1993 and the year 2000.

    A recent study on the emergency department in a Toronto hospital conducted on weekends in June and July in 2000 showed 10.4% of the patients treated reported using Ecstasy, GHB, or Special K within the past 24 hours. The study also indicated that club drug users tended to arrive more by ambulance than the general population and that the incidence of use of club drugs with alcohol showed the need for greater awareness about the hazards of combining these drugs.

    In March of 2002, our drug enforcement section members assisted with a newspaper series educating people on Ecstasy use and production. A 17-year-old man was interviewed and said the following about Ecstasy use, and I quote:

I popped 187 pills in 70 days, often taking two or three at a time. When I smoked a joint, the high came even quicker. I was 13 years old the first time I tried Ecstasy. Between my 15th and 16th birthdays I did it every Friday night. With what I have done I'm going to have some bad side effects.

    Police, health officials, and social agencies must send a strong message of prevention and education about the dangerous effects that accompany Ecstasy use. A study conducted by university neurologists at Johns Hopkins University found that as long as 18 months after MDMA--Ecstasy--injections, certain regions of the brains of squirrel monkeys looked like clear-cut sections of rain forest; whole swaths of serotonin-producing neurons were missing from regions of their brains, including in parts of the cortex, or surface, of the brain, and in the hypocampus, an area involved in memory.

    The effects of the club drugs on the user are very dangerous. Their use is relatively new in Ontario and Canada, so the exact extent of the damage they will cause is still to be determined. As mentioned earlier, the marketing of club drugs is clearly aimed at young people. On the Internet, the message that Ecstasy is a safe drug that will not cause harm to the user is easy to find.

    As you see on the screen, the tablet is usually physically attractive, coming in a variety of fun colours such as bright blue and yellow, often with a Playboy bunny or a smiley face logo stamped into it, clearly meant to attract young children. All this evidence demonstrates that individuals involved in the production and trafficking of non-medical drugs are targeting young people so they can increase the amount of time they will have to traffic to the user, which ultimately increases their profit.

    Now is not the time to soften our stance on these drugs. Instead, it's time to band together and send a clear message to our youths focusing on prevention and education.

    We have focused the first part of this presentation on marijuana, which is viewed as a soft drug, to impress upon the committee its challenge. Drugs such as crack, heroin, and Ecstasy are dangerous drugs as well.

    For many years now, harm reduction and enforcement have been talked about as partners. Harm reduction has now evolved in such a broad way that every article one reads seems to have its own definition. We believe that while harm reduction strategies may reduce some of the health consequences of illegal drug use to the individual users, they also enable the user, which does not therefore reduce the harm to others who may become unwilling victims of the drug user.

º  (1600)  

    The majority of areas policed by the OPP are rural in nature. As a result, the access to drugs is limited in comparison to larger, urban centres. Intervention by police through enforcement on traffickers in these communities proves to have a profound effect on the interruption of the availability of non-medical drugs.

    However, the OPP recognizes that traditional enforcement action cannot by itself significantly decrease drug use in all areas of the province. Education, prevention, and rehabilitation are also absolutely key aspects. Alternative resolutions for first-time summary conviction drug-related offences, drug courts, community service, and court-ordered treatment are all avenues we would support. These measures can lead to a decrease in drug use and the potential for abuse if the foundation and support services are properly created and maintained. We need to look no further than the success enjoyed from delivering the message regarding drinking and driving. The OPP believes that an orchestrated approach regarding drug use similar to that of drinking and driving will prove to be successful in decreasing the use and abuse of non-medical drugs.

    Based on the information we have provided within this presentation, we offer you the following recommendations.

    First, a recommit to an effective and measurable drug strategy for Canada that integrates prevention, education, enforcement, treatment, rehabilitation, and research.

    Second, develop, implement, and provide sustained funding for effective prevention and education programs delivered directly to vulnerable young people to address the adverse effects of non-medical drug use.

    Third, commit to meaningful alternate justice measures and the necessary supporting structures to address first-time summary conviction offences in order to prevent and deter drug use.

    The OPP believes these measures would have a positive effect on all Canadians, as each of us is affected in some way, in some corner, by drug abuse.

    Thank you very much for your patience in listening to our presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you, and thank you for a thorough presentation. I'm sure we have lots of questions for you.

    I'll turn now to Mr. Sorenson for the first question.

    Kevin.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Ontario Provincial Police for bringing this report today. We appreciate your presence, and we appreciate the perspective the police have played as we've travelled throughout parts of this country. We have heard the concerns of users, people who deliver health services, those involved in harm reduction, and those who play other roles in rehabilitation and in homes set up to rehabilitate those whose lives have been negatively impacted by the use of drugs.

    This past week we went throughout the Maritimes and spoke to many. We have seen the negative effects of the drug issue in dealing with health care, crime, and all those things.

    I want to thank you for your recommendations. The questions usually posed by the committee are your top two recommendations or priorities. Given that this committee has been structured to review the drug strategy of our country, and given that we have to report in November, we appreciate your recommendations being spelled out so clearly in your brief. They are recommendations that highlight prevention, enforcement, education, treatment, rehabilitation, and research.

    I have a couple of questions. First of all, you have spoken at some length about your concerns on the marijuana issue. This is another issue before the House right now. The House is dealing with certain things that have happened because of different things that have gone on with the bill that might decriminalize the use of marijuana.

    Given that you are involved in education, as police, and dealing with young people, in many cases, what type of message do you think our young people would pick up if this country were to move toward decriminalization of marijuana? That's my first question.

    I will ask my second question, and then I'll let you answer that.

    I noticed in your brief you spoke about different aspects of harm reduction. In the last week we have learned that harm reduction, to a certain degree, is common sense. There are some things that are very applicable. We need to see where we can reduce the amount of harm on all people. But the problem with the whole catchphrase “harm reduction” is it means something different to everyone. Some harm reduction measures may be common sense; however, to others they may mean something totally different.

    As police officers, how would you view the concept of safe injection sites? Housing facilities where people can come to shoot up drugs, perhaps funded by the federal government, so they can be off the streets sounds awfully good. They wouldn't have to shoot up on the sidewalk but could come to a building and shoot up. How would this impede police efforts to enforce, or would it enhance their efforts?

º  (1605)  

    Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson (Ontario Provincial Police): I'll start with your first question in regard to decriminalization, the police message and the message to young people in regard to decriminalization. I think to a certain extent there are mixed messages out there already on decriminalization and legalization. There's been enough in the papers that the young people are reading and listening to, and certainly that comes back to us all the time. The image out there is that marijuana is a soft drug, a harmless drug, and certainly anything to do with criminalization would only pass on that message. Decriminalization or legalization is not going to change the trafficking of cannabis.

    Currently, all organized crime get their main revenue from drug trafficking, and marijuana and the organized grows are one of the main areas. Decriminalization or legalization is not going to change this. As we've seen in the tobacco and liquor industries, they'll just move on to something else, and they'll be involved in the trade.

    Certainly, we're trying to get the point across to young people that marijuana is not a good drug. We look upon it as being a drug. And whether you want to call it a gateway drug or not, it does lead to other drug use. Surveys have shown that people who are involved in the use of cocaine--children--are many times more liable to use cocaine and other drugs if they have used marijuana. I'll equate that to alcohol. If you're sitting around with a group of guys drinking beer and somebody has a bottle of tequila, it's pretty easy to take a shot of tequila. And I guess if you're sitting around smoking pot and somebody has Ecstasy, it's very easy to make that next move.

    As far as harm reduction and safe injection sites are concerned, I understand we're just getting started with some trials on those. We police rural Ontario, and I'll say right now it's my belief that rural Ontario is not ready for safe injection sites. We have supported and been involved in the needle exchange program in various communities in Ontario. Those programs have been very successful, and we certainly have those types of drugs in Ontario. We have crack cocaine in Kenora; we have cocaine in Moose Factory; and there are injections around the province. Needle exchange programs are various and across the province.

    There are issues around safe injection sites. I know this committee is going to Europe and will have a chance to look at sites that have been in place for several years. I suggest to you, please, take the police perspective in those areas, because they've been dealing with that enforcement. We have to deal with where the drugs come from, the types of drugs, whether there are going to be more traffickers around these safe injection sites, the quality, the civil liability. At the same time, we do agree that anything that will cut down on the spreading of HIV or other disease is something we have to look at in terms of harm reduction. Other than that, we are looking at drug reduction. That's what our main job is in enforcement, and it's a multi-tasked agency force to do that.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I have one other question that I think was brought out in testimony. I would like to ask how often, or how regularly--if that's the right terminology--marijuana is used. I think what I understood from Madam Commissioner when she spoke in her testimony was that marijuana is sometimes being used to speed up the high or bring it on quicker--to enhance the high. It may not be a stand-alone drug. It may not be one that just happens to be there but one that is used in the delivery of other drugs to enhance the high these drug addicts are experiencing or trying to experience.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: I can probably answer that from some undercover experiences I've had. Certainly, as the superintendent mentions, we view marijuana on the streets as a gateway drug. I've never been in an environment where if other drugs are available, solely marijuana is used and that's it; that somebody would come in and say, that's all I'm going to use. Those are our real-life experiences.

    I guess each person has a drug of choice, and obviously that drug affects each person differently. Certainly, the young individual I interviewed who gave us the quote regarding Ecstasy is not the norm. Most often, Ecstasy's not used with marijuana. They work against each other. So that's kind of surprising. But it goes back to the fact that the drugs are dangerous to each person and they affect each person differently, so that's a pretty clear example of how it affected this one person.

    I would say from my experience being in that subculture that quite often the most common is marijuana mixed with alcohol, or alcohol with marijuana. It's a “to each their own” set of rules in terms of what's used in conjunction with another type of drug.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I would like to pose one other question to any of you. As we travelled last week, I personally was astonished at the number of individuals who are using needle exchanges and methadone treatment centres, at the prison record they had, and also the record they had dealing with crime. Many of them told us how they had to steal and rob to continue their habit and to feed their addiction.

    Do you have any substantive study done by the OPP that would show the correlation between drugs and ongoing criminal investigations and criminal activity?

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: I don't think specifically we have any ongoing accurate study that has been completed by the OPP--certainly it would be news to me--with regard to drugs in relation to crime and crime in relation to drugs. But it's very obvious. Again, going back to what we find in the undercover side of the house, this link is very common. Quite often our undercover officers are faced with having to go out with individuals while they commit crimes in order to get money for drugs.

    There have been studies done. One was done right here in Ottawa in 1999 with regard to simple possession of marijuana and crimes committed. They found that with regard to simple possession charges, those charges came back and 95% of the time related to another crime. So there's a relation there. Obviously they co-exist with the possession side. It's very blatant to us that drugs are related in all types of crime, whether it's homicide or a simple--depending on whether you're the victim or not--crime of having your car broken into and your wallet or your cellphone or whatever stolen, because obviously those items are worth a price on the street.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Simple decriminalization then will not affect the crime rate really, will it?

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: That study from 1999 sums it up, and the good thing about that study, in my opinion, is that it was one that was completed after the fact. It was a study that examined charges that were laid over a two-year period right here in Ottawa, and it showed that 95% of the possession-related charges for simple marijuana, which was the drug they used, were all related to something else. So if you decriminalize marijuana, I don't see where it's going to save anything. You have to go through the whole process anyway, because the charge is related to something else.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Did you just want to clarify your earlier comments about police officers undercover committing crimes? I don't think that's what you actually meant, but it kind of came out that way.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: That's not at all what I meant. Obviously that's one of the jams we find ourselves in, where we don't go out to commit them, but the people we're working on do.

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): I'll be asking my question in French. Your brief was interesting, but I feel it lacks some nuances and I'd like you to clarify a few things for me.

    First of all, we've been hearing from witnesses for several months and we've learned that in Europe, 12 of 15 countries have proceeded, to varying degrees, to bring in some form of decriminalization. According to our information, the demand for marijuana or other drugs that have been decriminalized is not in fact the greatest in these countries. If we compare the situation in the European nations with the reality in a country like the United States, where drug use is prohibited, supply and demand are often greater than in countries where the same drugs have been decriminalized.

    What have you based yourself on to arrive at these conclusions? Do you have any statistics? How can you come before us and claim that if decriminalization were to take place, demand would necessarily increase?

[English]

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Information that we have received from Europe indicates that early studies show that when that has been decriminalized, or areas have been set aside for the use of marijuana or hashish, there doesn't seem to be a noted increase. But over the years there has been a substantial increase, actually, in the use of marijuana and hashish, and the number of marijuana shops or teahouses have increased dramatically.

    So some of the studies and information we receive are the opposite of your information from Europe. We certainly believe that if marijuana is available, and available a little easier, there will be an increased use of marijuana or hashish in Canada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I hope you plan to share your data with the committee. Obviously, I'm not questioning your facts, but they are very different from the figures we were given. These statistics will certainly prove convincing when the time comes for us to draw up our recommendations.

    Secondly, you seem to have completely dismissed the possibility that there may be honest citizens out there who, for recreation or leisure purposes, may wish to use marijuana. If I understood your figures correctly, you claim that in 90 per cent of cases, marijuana use results is either a minor or major offence such as theft or break and enter. Therefore, you're establishing a statistical correlation between marijuana and various types of offences. Again, I'd like more explicit data in support of this claim.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: What we're really saying is that we, as the police community and drug enforcement section, do not target simple possession of marijuana. We target enterprise crime, we target production, importing, trafficking.

    So the study really shows that the possession charges that were laid were linked to other crimes. They were linked to a person being arrested for break and enter and at the same time was in possession of marijuana. He was arrested for impaired driving and then arrested for possession of marijuana. So that's where the 95% link comes in as far as the use of crime.

    When you're dealing with marijuana, we aren't looking at the person who is in his house recreationally smoking marijuana. But it seems that we run into people on the street. We run into them in places such as in Kingston last summer. Tourist complaints were received about the amount of marijuana smoking in the malls and the injection use that was taking place in the open streets, as well as marijuana. It was affecting our tourist industry. We were asked to do an undercover operation in Kingston and we arrested numerous people. So those are the people the police are in contact with.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: One of our Alliance colleagues who has been in the news of late has tabled a private member's bill. As a public institution, would you be willing to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana ? In your opinion, should a prevention or harm reduction strategy automatically include a provision whereby simple possession of marijuana, even of only a few grams, constitutes grounds for a criminal record or would you be willing to consider draft legislation of the kind tabled by our colleague? Are you willing to consider that such a provision might be of some benefit?

[English]

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Our position is really no different from the position that will be put forward by the CACP. We're not opposed to alternate solutions as far as simple possession of first-time summary conviction offences. Really, that is no different from the position that is taken in Canada right now, because even with the current legislation, usually there's an absolute discharge, or conditional discharge along with some sorts of provisions that are in place.

    We're not opposed to alternative measures for this type of situation. I understand the CACP is looking at where there are small amounts and under certain conditions, and we will not deal with youth; we're dealing with adults, not youth. That position will probably come forward later on in their paper. Certainly, we're not opposed to that, nor at looking at all areas of enforcement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine.

    With your permission, I have two short questions. As my colleague was saying, we were in Halifax last week where we met with your counterparts from other police forces. I was very pleasantly surprised to note the efforts on their part to visits schools and various communities in order to educate people about drug use and the consequences associated with drug use. Is this also the mission of the forces members you represent, as yours is probably one of the largest police forces in Canada? Do some of your officers go out into the schools and various communities to deliver a prevention message?

[English]

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Absolutely, sir. We take part in the DARE program, drug abuse resistance education. Our part of it is not one where we deliver the entire program from the drug enforcement section side of the house. Our uniformed officers do that, those who are on the front lines.

    I can pleasantly say that coming into classrooms that have had DARE education, that have had the 17-week program, not just dealing with illicit drugs but other types of drugs, the level of understanding of the dangers of all types of drugs that those students have after receiving that program is outstanding. I think if that program reaches one at-risk child or one at-risk youth, it's a success.

    That also ties in with your last question with regard to not having a criminal record for simple possession. I think a real point could be made if there were an alternative measure, such as education. I can honestly tell you that when I go into a classroom again and explain to them the addiction rate of marijuana, the withdrawal symptoms associated with marijuana, how THC affects your body and how it's stored in the fat cells of your brain, the half-life of marijuana, etc., they're almost shocked. They don't have that knowledge. I think that's where the system is sort of broken down, as we showed with the wheel there.

    Certainly I think there's an onus on police to deliver that message as well with education. We have to do that.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one last question?

    I sat on the committee that summarily reviewed the entire legislative framework associated with the fight against organized crime. This sub-committee reported to the Justice Committee. As far as marijuana is concerned, do you really think that today, in 2002, this substance still represents a major source of income for organized crime bosses? I'm not talking here about the small-time drug dealers in schools and different communities, but about the higher-ups in the ranks of organized crime. You understand that I'm not talking about the people who deal drugs in the high school yard in Moncton or in Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, but about crime bosses. Do you think marijuana still represents a considerable source of income for them?

[English]

    The Chair: The member for Moncton is a little bit concerned about that last question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I only used Moncton as an example to illustrate my point.

[English]

    The Chair: Montreal--

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I could just as well have used Montreal as an example. I'm talking about organized crime in large cities?

    A member: Is Moncton considered a large city?

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Moncton is a large city. Is it represented by an important MP? I can't answer that question.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.): You should be putting that question to Ms. Bradshaw.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Indeed she is an important MP. That's a very partisan comment.

[English]

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: I would say that more so today than any time we've had in the last 25 years, marijuana is perhaps the highest revenue source for organized crime. We've seen that in the movement and the influx of indoor grow houses. We've gone from the small plots of southwestern Ontario to huge plots, and just about every one of them is tied to one of the organized crime groups.

    Cocaine is being imported. There's the risk of importation of cocaine. Actually, the price of cocaine has gone down and the price of marijuana has gone up. The THC content has gone up. The quality in Canada has gone up. I would say it is the main source for organized crime, over any other drug of choice.

    The Chair: Madame Libby Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here today. You've obviously given a very thorough presentation.

    I assume you're here because you consider yourselves to be experts in this area. I would certainly agree, when it comes to enforcement, you have a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience. But listening to your presentation, I have some questions--like my colleague from the Bloc--about what your position is and whether or not we could consider that as expert.

    I'm even curious about your statement on page 5 where you say, “non-medical drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous”. I think even that is hugely debatable. We actually see some of the worst situations and the most danger or the greatest risk to society from drugs that are legal, whether it's tobacco or alcohol. There's even the comment you just made about the higher source of income for organized crime coming from illegal drugs. You can sort of flip the argument around, right?

    I certainly know in my community in Vancouver it's because of the illegality. We often talk about the harm created because the drugs are illegal. So I really have to question what you are presenting here. We've heard lots of evidence about the huge problems that come from legal drugs that are being abused. So the legality of it has maybe nothing to do with it, in terms of what you're presenting here.

    I'm also very curious about your position on harm reduction strategies. You say here, “they still enable the user, which therefore does not reduce the harm to others who become unwilling victims of the drug user”. I really want to say to you, in terms of the reality of what's going on, what is a preferable scenario? Is it a completely uncontrolled and open drug scene, where people are dying from overdoses, sharing needles, where 80% of crime is being driven by the illegal drug trade, and where communities are being destroyed? That's one scenario. There's also another scenario, where you can have safe injection facilities that are medically supervised, have contact with users, and begin a process of getting people into treatment. So again, I really question how you view harm reduction.

    When you tell us to listen to the police perspective when we go to Europe, I have to tell you I've talked to police officials from Europe. They were the ones who led the campaign to get the open drug scene completely shut down and have it under supervision--have heroin maintenance and safe injection. They realized they couldn't deal with it any more. So I really wonder what you're suggesting here in terms of not supporting any kind of harm reduction.

    For example, in Vancouver the police have now become very supportive of the four-pillar approach, which includes harm reduction, because they've recognized it is part of a comprehensive strategy. So I'd like to question you on that. Why do you see this as enabling, as opposed to part of a strategy that will actually improve the safety of not only drug users but the community at large? That's one question.

    Second is this whole issue of gateway drugs. We actually had a very good presentation from the Marijuana Party in Halifax. The young fellow pointed out that by having all of these substances mixed up together in the illegal trade, in actual fact it was again because of the illegality that young people were being exposed to marijuana and other substances when they went to their dealers. I guess you could also say that all people who drive cars don't necessarily become involved in fatal accidents, so not all marijuana users necessarily end up being cocaine addicts. So I really sort of question where you're coming from with a statement that it's a gateway drug. Maybe you could explain what evidence you have to support that.

º  (1630)  

    Commr Gwen Boniface: Maybe I could make some opening comments in response to your question on the issue of harm reduction.

    We would encourage the committee to look at the range of definitions around harm reduction. Our suggestion is to define it in a way that helps us to understand, at least in the policing community, what it means when we hear the words “harm reduction”. There are so many versions of it out there.

    I think you are correct that the experience in Vancouver may differ from the experience in rural Ontario and urban Truro. It is one of the reasons we thought it was important to have an opportunity to speak to you about what the rural availabilities are in terms of harm reduction.

    On the second point, the example we were trying to give was about drug users in areas that affect other people. For example, if we take a workplace where drugs are available and used, it may affect other workers from a safety perspective.

    Quite frankly, as you think through the process and the implications, we agree. I think we've made the point that this, in our view, is a very comprehensive look. Our fear, to put it very bluntly, as we look at one stream of all the pillars, is we don't look at them comprehensively.

    We have a drug strategy that, quite frankly, was described to me yesterday as a strategy that sounds good but has no meat and potatoes under it. Our encouragement to you is to not deal with one piece of the law in a way that's separate from the rest and to deal within a comprehensive factor.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Actually, to the contrary, the committee has been very interested in looking at a comprehensive approach.

    Look at your example of substance abuse in the workplace. Whether there are illicit drugs or legal substances, if it is illicit, it comes back to the question of when people become criminalized. Some people are able to cope in a better way if they have resources. Usually the poorer you are, the harder it is to do it. You are very visible on the street.

    To me, it comes back to the question of illegality. There is a very serious question about the risks from the drugs themselves, if we want to look at risks to society and weigh it. I think we would all agree there are risks. Maybe we can respond to it through proper education and not only zero tolerance. Drugs have existed. Use has existed.

    There are very large questions around what the consequences are as a result of illegality. In your example of the weapons used, there's an example of illegality driving a whole new situation that's dangerous to the public. Horrible weapons are being used around grow operations.

º  (1635)  

    Commr Gwen Boniface: I would add, as you go through your deliberations, that I fully appreciate that you're looking at all corners. We appreciate that you do so.

    When you do speak to European countries, speak to the police about what they think now and what their perspective is now.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Why? Do you think it has changed?

    Commr Gwen Boniface: I think it's exactly what the superintendent said.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Everything I've read from Europe, including very recently, shows enforcement is clearly still part of the strategy. It's really where the emphasis is and where the priorities are.

    We have the Auditor General's report that shows that 95% of federal resources are going to enforcement. I could ask you point blank whether we have made a dent in illegal drug use in Canada. All the statistics are telling us we have not.

    If our primary area is enforcement, it doesn't seem to be working. Surely, we should be looking at the balance of the interaction between the different pillars.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Exactly. I think it's what our recommendations are. You look at a balance and that the balance is there.

    Ms. Libby Davies: You don't include harm reduction, though.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: We include prevention and harm reduction. As I said earlier, we're not against harm reduction, and in fact we support needle exchange in Ontario.

    As I said to you, when in Germany, I had two presentations on injection sites over there. Actually, both presentations came from the police perspective in Europe. The perspectives were different.

    It's why I say look at what it is over there now. The changes were really the reason for the safe injection sites. It did clean up the community for the tourists. The areas during the day look quite nice, but maybe it's not the same way at night.

    Touch base with the police. It's what I'm suggesting.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'm sure we will be visiting it.

    Do I have more time?

    Supt Morris Elbers: Ms. Davies, can I qualify this for your information? You indicated to the panel something with regard to where we receive our information with regard to some of the statements that were made. A number of the officers who work within drug enforcement are undercover officers. They are dealing on a daily basis in projects throughout the province with regard to the purchase of illicit drugs, and breaking in and entrenching themselves into organizations. So the information that's gleaned from those particular officers, in particular on the gateway question--I'm dated, so I'm talking the eighties--is shared amongst all the other units.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, but would you agree that it's possible with this whole issue of gateway drugs--and we've heard it raised many times--that because these substances are all wrapped up together, and it is illegal, we're basically driving kids to seek out probably very unsafe situations to make purchases? So again it comes back to the question of illegality, right? Whereas we had information that showed in the Netherlands there was a different kind of environment, with education and permitted use, and they weren't seeing those kids being driven into a black market kind of situation where they get mixed up in God knows what. Would you agree that it's part of the problem?

    Supt Morris Elbers: I guess the way you state it, yes, it would be part of the problem. The point I was trying to make was with regard to the particular situation of whether marijuana leads to other drugs. That is information received in conversation with the actual user in doing your particular job. A number of the users indicate that they started off with marijuana. Whether you're into a coke operation or speed, marijuana was always there. That normally was the drug of choice, and it's led....as the superintendent indicated, if you're sitting around having a beer and tequila is there, you might move on to tequila. It's the same thing with drugs. The illicit drugs are illegal.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

    The Chair: That's from the other side; it's the opinion of the people that you've been interviewing, arresting, and what have you, in that particular case?

º  (1640)  

    Supt Morris Elbers: That's correct, yes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

    Congratulations on your presentation, which I'll call comprehensive. In your brief, you have used the term “comprehensive” to describe the approach that should be there in addressing our societal drug problem, as big or small as it is.

    Do you think our approach now is comprehensive? If you don't, where are we coming up short? Where are we low and where are we strong? If you agree with a comprehensive approach, where are we not comprehensive now? Your brief has hit a lot of the nails on the head. You've caught most of the concepts, most of the buzzwords, most of the mechanisms.

    Commr Gwen Boniface: I'll speak first, just by rank, and then I'll certainly invite them to add in.

    I think we're weak on education and prevention in terms of getting the message out. I realize we do part of that as the police, but I think it needs to be done to a much greater extent in the system. I think the only way you're going to get those linkages... and we know this from the work we do in schools. There's an unending demand for the OPP to be in the schools. You can't do it as much as they would like you to. Particularly where the DARE program has been applied, they want more and more and more.

    The problem is, how do you divide all your resources? My sense is there's obviously an underlying funding issue across the country in terms of education, prevention, and messaging that gets somewhat convoluted in the process.

    I'll certainly allow the superintendent to add to that, but I think that would be the view right across the country.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: I agree with the commissioner on that. Education to reduce the demand is the means through which we should be going. We do not have the resources or the time to commit to it fully, the way we should be.

    The other thing I'd like to say is our first recommendation is to recommit to a national drug strategy. We've had drug strategies for years in various departments, but we fall behind such strategies as they have in Europe and the United States, where they perhaps have named a main person who makes that drive and coordinates all the efforts in the national drug strategy. I don't think a strong direction is coming from the national capital on that.

    Mr. Derek Lee: If I'm right, just say yes. In your case, as the Ontario Provincial Police, the money, the resources you would use for education, comes from the Ontario government, from their taxpayers but with some local taxpayer inputs at certain places. Is that correct?

    Commr Gwen Boniface: In those areas where we have contracts, which is roughly 90 communities in the province, the local municipality is supporting the DARE officer as part of their packet.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I've mentioned this before. You're police officers, you're career professionals, but you're not teachers. And yet somehow we seem to rely on police to go out and educate, which seems a little odd. I'm not saying you don't do a reasonably good job of what you try to do. But sending the policeman out to teach something is a little bit like sending the teacher out to do a drug bust. Do you have any comment on that? You wouldn't take umbrage with teachers performing the role in a better resourced education program, would you?

    Commr Gwen Boniface: I'll let the superintendent add, but let me just do it on a higher level first. There is great benefit to the OPP from relationship-building with kids in schools--to be present in the schools. While in the earlier years in the 1990s we would not have had officers present in the schools, we now have officers present in some schools, if not daily, then every other day, as part of their duties. We are seeing actually—and maybe it represents the gap—a greater and greater need, from the school's perspective, for a police officer presence, not from a safety perspective but from an educational perspective on a number of things.

    The linkage for policing is important because the relationship you build with kids in their teens is a relationship, from a police support perspective, that you build with your community into the future. From the short term and the long term I think it has value.

    I appreciate your point in terms of educators, but I think some front-line experience is also helpful for kids.

º  (1645)  

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: That's exactly what I was going to add. These young people are very street-wise and they're very smart. When we were putting this presentation together, Superintendent Elbers' son, who is a high school student, was looking at this sheet and said, “Dad, there's no Popeye Ecstasy there”, because that's what's going through his school. If you lose credibility when you're talking to these young people and you're not saying what it's like on the street and not aware of what's going on, then you lose them. They look to you for credibility, and that's why police officers are very good for this type of training.

    Mr. Derek Lee: In terms of harm reduction, our committee members have expressed some confusion as to what harm reduction is. And I think you've said something similar. Harm reduction can be everything. I find it a bit of a euphemism to cover anything that would address perceived dysfunctions in the prohibition model of drug control that we use now. But it could be something very specific and defined. So it's everything on both extremes and up the middle. Are there specific harm reduction procedures or programs that you have encountered in your work that you endorse, that you think are effective and should be continued or grown to respond to the real needs?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Harm reduction is where we're looking at the harm to the user or harm to the public. As I've said, we stand behind the needle exchange program in Ontario. That's where we're at in small-town Ontario, and we follow that. That's really the only program I would look at as a direct harm reduction program in Ontario, but we're not averse to any of those programs.

    Mr. Derek Lee: There are a lot of other alleged harm reduction techniques out there. Whenever we have a community problem associated with drug use, it's possible to respond with a one-off. If we just did this a little bit differently, whether or not the law allows it, if we just did a bit of a tweak over here on a community basis, we could solve that problem over at the high school or that problem down on the waterfront. The safe shooting site where the probably addicted person brings his or her own drug and accesses at least a medically supervised site is not something you've seen operating or that you would support at this point in time. You see problems with it

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: It's simply not something I believe small-town Ontario is ready for, and I ask this committee to look at all of Canada when you're dealing with it. This is not the east side of Vancouver; this is not downtown Toronto. I've worked downtown Toronto, and it certainly is a very different world from Moosonee, and I know that small-town Ontario is not ready for safe injection sites.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation.

    Mr. Barnum, you were answering a question from one of my colleagues in which you were asked about an aspect of the decriminalization of marijuana. In your answer you stated that 95% of the cases that go to court relate to people convicted for something other than the use of the marijuana, that they would have done some other crime along the way. Would that not lead one to say, then, that 5% of those cases were purely and simply related to possession of marijuana?

    Would that then make it easier for the OPP to suggest that even if this committee were to recommend a comprehensive strategy and if this committee were to look at part of the strategies to decriminalize the simple possession of one gram or x number of grams of marijuana, this wouldn't really affect you at all because, in essence, it's only going to affect 5% of those people? Is that your position?

º  (1650)  

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Your analogy is pretty fair, or you're pretty fair with what you're saying. I look after a team of approximately 30 detectives in central Ontario, and I guess my point is that I haven't seen the 5% referred to firsthand because we simply don't target marijuana users already--simple marijuana users. But as the 95% survey or study indicates, if someone is picked up for a breach, where they're not allowed to contact anybody or somebody else, or it's a domestic situation and they're arrested for that breach, if they have marijuana on them that's the kind of situation where the 95% of those charges are coming from, that type of crime.

    A lot of the time when I talk to people or read things, I see it's very simple to believe a survey that says we're spending all your money on targeting simple possession, but from the front lines and from being there for ten years in strictly drug enforcement, I can say it's absolutely not true.

    Mr. Mac Harb: So it would really help you greatly if part of the overall strategy were to distinctly differentiate between crimes committed because of simple possession and crimes committed because of possession and other issues that come into play.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: I'm not sure how it would help because we're really not dealing with that now. I don't know how our front-line officers doing traffic control... a car goes by and they stop the driver for speeding and it turns out a marijuana possession charge comes from that. I don't know how we can make that distinction as officers. I guess the simple case would be driving by an arcade or something and seeing somebody smoking a joint. That might be the easiest way to target that. But I don't see a distinction.

    Mr. Mac Harb: If everything comes into the pen and you're trying to weed some of the stuff out, you'd say this is pure and simple possession so I'm not going to deal with it. But this one is possession and other things, so this I'm going to leave in the pot. Therefore, in essence, it should clear the way and give you more ammunition in order to deal with those who are saying you're putting everyone in jail for the possession of marijuana, wouldn't it?

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: I believe that's already happening, essentially. Certainly, with simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, it already happens that way.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: There's nobody really going to jail for possession of marijuana. We don't know of people who are going to jail for that. Conversely, what is happening with the talk about decriminalization and legalization of marijuana... we are now getting large enterprise crime where, really, we don't feel the sentence is fitting the crime because it's being watered down at all levels and is not distinct from small possessions.

    Mr. Mac Harb: My final question is about your Special K. It's not Kellogg's Special K . Maybe you can tell us a bit about that.

    The backup for your recommendation 3 on page 8 appears to be subclause 4(1). It's quite obvious you recognize that traditional enforcement action doesn't seem to be working and you want something to go along with that. I presume that as part of that you would want to see the government addressing some of the issues we spoke about earlier.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: On the other issues, yes.

    Did you want to speak about Special K?

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Gladly. Special K is not the cereal. It stands for Ketamine. Special K is the term used on the street. Most people who use Special K probably don't know it means Ketamine. Ketamine is a veterinary drug used to tranquilize medium-sized animals, including small German shepherds and large labradors. Quite often it gets on the street by people breaking into veterinary complexes and stealing it in the liquid form. Then they dehydrate it and turn it into a powder.

    It's also a tranquilizer for humans, obviously. Essentially, it looks like cocaine. People who are familiar with cocaine or have used it will buy Special K in the gram form. It's about $120 for a gram. The desired effects could be obtained with 0.1 grams of Special K. The danger we're finding with Special K is that people who aren't familiar with it, because it's a new drug, are maybe using 0.5 or 0.6 grams, and that's putting them into a long-term coma. That's the real danger of that drug.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harb.

    I had some questions based on your presentation. You mentioned that increased consumption with the liberalization of access to drugs in Europe has caused an increased rate of consumption, and we've already established that you're going to get us those studies. There's been an increase in consumption in North America and there hasn't been any liberalization, so I'm not sure that the cause-effect you're suggesting is really evidenced, since there's just been an increased consumption of drugs.

    Secondly, on page 3, you identify that if you had an increased supply, you'd increase demand. Normally, supply and demand relate to cost, and one of the problems with the cost of some of the drugs is that it creates an associated crime factor. Because police forces are doing a great job in certain areas in reducing the supply, the demand remains constant, the price goes up. Some people have argued that if we actually regulated and better controlled the access and perhaps introduced a new system, we could in fact reduce the price and therefore reduce the crime, because people wouldn't have a $180 habit; they may have other ways to support themselves.

    So I'd like to hear your comments on that.

    You talked about the drug strategy for Canada. The Auditor General has shown that we in fact talk about a comprehensive approach or a balanced approach: 50% on reducing demand, 50% on interdiction and reducing supply, but we spend at the federal level about 95% of our dollars on reducing supply. In fact, the 5% we spend on reducing demand is often carried out by police forces doing DARE programs in different parts, the RCMP officers, and corrections programs reducing the incidence of addiction or trying to help people get off their addictions.

    I wonder if you could supply for us some information, by breaking down your budgets, on how much you spend on these things, and if there's a comparison for the Province of Ontario, with how much the provincial government spends on health and education to reduce the demand.

    I don't expect you to have that with you right at this minute; I'm sure you'd have to get back to us.

    Lastly, you said harm reduction needs to be defined.

    And yet, Superintendent Hutchinson, in your discussion with Mr. Lee you identified that certain harm reduction aspects wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for certain communities. You're not policing downtown Toronto. My question, first of all, is, why does it have to be defined? To me, it's defined as reducing harm, so we might have strategies that would ensure more people are healthier or that people are kept alive so that they can get access to a program. With a lot of people, in fact, it's age-related. Suddenly they get to be 40 and 50 years of age and they say: “I'm tired of this lifestyle, I'm going to seek help”, and if they're still alive and relatively healthy, then we can help them through that.

    So why does it have to be defined? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for everybody involved on the issue of substance abuse to be able to say this. Do you know what? What's appropriate for your community in Moosonee may not be appropriate for Sault Ste. Marie. And everybody would do whatever is appropriate, but keep people alive and reduce harm.

    In fact, you mention about who's the victim here. Well, frankly, the spouse of somebody who's used a prostitute in downtown Toronto who gets hepatitis C because the prostitute is hepatitis C positive... There's a whole series of victims, and we need to be ensuring the health of all of our communities. It's not just the victim of the burglary and the sense of fear that people have, it's also a whole associated set of health incidents.

»  (1700)  

    The last question I had was from page 8--I'm piling them all up on you. It's your last sentence, actually, Ms. Boniface, and that's:

The OPP believes that an orchestrated approach regarding drug use similar to that of drinking and driving will prove to be successful in significantly decreasing the use and abuse of non-medical drugs.

    I would argue that perhaps part of the problem in the incident of the red Honda Civic was that the young person got the wrong message. The message isn't, don't drink and drive; it's don't put yourself in an altered state and get behind the wheel of a car. What's happening, as I understand it from talking to some young people, is they think, well, if I drive down this street and there's a RIDE program, they can't bust me if I'm high on marijuana. So they're getting the wrong message.

    It's not about getting caught; it's about not killing yourself and your friends or somebody else. So maybe we need to demystify it. And I was glad to hear you, Mr. Barnum, talking about being more sophisticated in talking to young people about drug use--look out for these other things and reduce the harm associated with it if you are going to do some of these things. Don't scare children. Certainly at younger ages scare tactics might work, but they go home and mom and dad drink wine at dinner and they think, well, which drugs are you telling me not use?

    The tobacco programs have been somewhat successful, but people are still abusing other drugs, and they are legal drugs.

    I wonder if you could talk about all of those things in three minutes or less. Sorry to pile them all on. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here because we have to tease out the information.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Yes, from one date.

    Maybe I'll start at the back there. We're talking about the drinking and driving and the tie-in. I think we use that example because there is a buy-in to the drinking and driving campaign. There is a buy-in from children with smoking. There's a buy-in from kids with seatbelts. We see that all the time. So all we're saying by that is we need a buy-in from all the communities on the message on drugs. We need to make sure we get the message across and that they've bought in.

    The Chair: Not for the reason of not getting caught but so they don't harm anybody.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Not for the reason of not getting caught. I don't believe with drinking and driving that's part of it, because we know the RIDE programs are out there. We know that we take that extra drink. But there is actually a real buy-in. I see it in parties that I go to now. There are designated drivers and there's a breakdown from drinking.

    The Chair: I hope they're not parties where people would consume marijuana. But that's what young people are saying.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: That's right. That's what young people are saying.

    As far as the supply and demand, we say that if there's more of a supply, there will be more demand. The reason we're saying that is because there will be more consumption. We believe there will be more consumption and there will be more of a demand. Yes, the charts we've shown show that in our society the use of drugs is going up. We go through drug trends. But we show the charts on Ecstasy where we've gone through from 1,000 to 200,000.

    Even through our education and our enforcement, the rate of drug use is going up. We go through trends, and we're doing all we can. When you have stats about drug use and drug charges, if we doubled the police force and there was enforcement, then we'd have twice the drug problem to a certain extent, because we'd have twice as many offences. Really it's hard to tell by offences where the drug problem is because there's such an unknown industry out there. How much are we getting--10%, 20%? I'm not sure.

    The Chair: Ms. Boniface, on the stats, can you supply those kinds of stats to us?

    Commr Gwen Boniface: I'll do my best to do it and I'll send it back to the committee. I'd be happy to look at the breakdown and particularly give you some background on the number of schools we're in with the DARE program and such, just to do some comparatives. We're quite interested in what the long term is, but because we're relatively new in the business I'm not sure what the long-term effect is.

    Can I just add, if I may, on the issue of drinking and driving? The current legislation allows the breathalyzer, the roadside screening device--all that sort of stuff. There are no linkages for the drugs, only from the seizure of the blood obviously. So when we say comprehensive, and looking at it, we're talking about looking at it in the total breadth of it. If you run an education program and you decide, as a committee, to go to some form of decriminalization, you would also have to think about what enforcement efforts you expect if somebody's driving a vehicle. How do we make the connection that exists today with alcohol? That's another link where, as we say, a comprehensive approach would have to be taken. We would argue that's it's unfortunate that we're not in a position to deal with that without it. But I think that's an important part of it.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Since we are televised, it would be important to remind people that they can actually be arrested for the appearance of being intoxicated; it doesn't have to be based on a breathalyzer alone.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: That is correct. But we do not have the equipment in place to do roadside testing for drugs right now. We can do blood tests for drugs, but we don't have the same type of equipment that we have for alcohol detection. If we legalized marijuana and everyone started driving around legally while using marijuana, we do not have the equipment in place now to test for marijuana.

    The Chair: You don't have the equipment for that, but if you suspect someone is under the influence of Dilaudids or marijuana or Valium and not operating their vehicle appropriately, there are still actions you can take, are there not?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: The car is stopped.

    The Chair: So when a car is stopped that has been driven erratically, what happens, if you can't smell any marijuana and there's no alcohol, if the driver is high on Valium--or low on Valium--I would think--

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: I'm not a traffic officer, but I would say that this would probably be a long process that is often not being dealt with today because it's a situation that would require a search warrant.

    The Chair: Okay. The RCMP have told us something quite a bit different about policing, then. It is in fact stopping cars and removing drivers. We'd better get some more information on the state of enforcement for people who are appearing to be stoned in some way and not able to operate vehicles.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: No, I would be in a position to arrest them, but we'd be dealing with a long, difficult situation when we went through the processing. The situations we're aware of when perhaps this has happened is in fatal accidents where blood has been taken from the driver at the hospital and the police have later been able to access it by way of a search warrant.

    The Chair: So the message you want to give to young people, or to anyone who would choose to put themselves in a state where they were using medical or non-medical drugs and getting behind the wheel of a car, is that life will become fairly difficult for them should they choose to do this. Is that correct?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: That's correct.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I certainly wouldn't want any other message to go out to people.

    Mr. Sorenson, you had a brief question.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes. I'm not sure if it is brief, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions.

    We have seen a liberalization in North America and here in Canada, contrary to what the chairperson has just suggested. I would put forward that we have seen it because of a lack of funding and resources for the enforcement side of the equation on this drug issue.

    We've also seen liberalization in the way we deal with the possession of small amounts of marijuana at this time. We aren't seeing these cases in courts or these perpetrators imprisoned. While I wouldn't say the police have thrown up their hands, they have seen the courts to a certain degree neglect these charges for the possession of small amounts. Consequently, many of them have come to think that if they leave it alone it will go away.

    In our tour last week we also saw loopholes in the medical profession that have liberalized to a degree the non-medical use of prescription drugs. It's a criminal offence, yet enforcement dollars aren't there and we see a liberalization of it.

    There is one question I'm not sure has come out yet today. In the last little while we have seen drug courts set up in Toronto. The purpose of these is to divert adults away from criminal prosecution and also to see that they get some degree of help if need be. Have you witnessed the success of the drug court program or certain concerns that have come out of it?

    I realize most of you are from rural Ontario and the area where we imagine most of this would be used is Toronto, but are there instances where those in rural Ontario are recommended or put forward to the drug courts in Toronto?

»  (1710)  

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: I don't know personally of any case from rural Ontario that's been forwarded to Toronto drug courts or a diversion court or whatever. I've sat in drug court for a couple of days and watched it operate. Although it's unique, I'd still say to a certain degree it is impressive to see users who truly are victims of their habit, I guess. They go in front of courts and there are diversion processes and programs set up for them. From what I saw, the guidelines seemed to be relatively strict and they had to follow them or they would find themselves on the penal side. Unfortunately, I have no long-term experience; it was just the two days there that I watched. Basically, that falls in line with some of our recommendations.

    Simply to go back to it, what we're talking about, even with supply and demand, is that there's no message going out, in my opinion from being on the streets. There's no common message going out from top to bottom. That's where we're falling and people are slipping through the loopholes. Young people don't understand what marijuana is today and what can happen to them. It goes on all the way down the line. So then they find themselves in front of drug courts down the road, as a user or whatever.

    We'd like to say that prevention is part of one of our recommendations, as well as alternative measures, such as drug courts, for the specific, one-time type of user who gets the chance. If they fall through the diversion, it will work for them.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I thank you for that testimony. Just so that I'm sure I get it clear, what you said is that young people are not understanding the degree of harm caused by marijuana, caused by some of the drugs. We're seeing them somewhere down the road, criminal prosecutions before our courts, the court system backlogged--as we know, it is already--and being forced to deal with the young people who didn't know the harmful effects of what some people may call lesser drugs or lighter drugs or soft drugs. They are a gateway to other drugs. Education is important, and so is enforcement and making sure there's a deterrent.

    One of the big concerns is the new drugs. You have talked a little bit about the new drugs that are out there and young people not understanding what they are in some cases. There's a little pill with a smiley face on it, a little pill with a Playboy bunny picture on it. In the tour through the Maritimes last week, we heard that some of these raves are attracting people as young as 11, 12, 13 years old. They sneak out and go to these raves and in many cases are given drugs, Ecstasy in some cases, but just whatever drugs are there.

    We also know that a lot of these drugs are tied directly to organized crime. We've heard from other police organizations in the past. Some have said that the difference between organized crime and police is that organized crime has an unlimited amount of funding and resources available. The police associations and RCMP and all those dealing with enforcement have had a lack of funding and a lack of resources.

    The problem with Ecstasy is that it comes in and it's hard to notice. There's no smell or aroma with it. Where you guys are out enforcing the law, is it a problem, or is it something that would only be a problem for major urban centres so those in rural Ontario, rural Alberta, rural Canada don't have to worry?

    The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...about raves, having young women who are 13 and 14 and older males being part of the same scene, and that was part of their concern. I don't think there were references to 11- and 12-year-olds.

»  (1715)  

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Ecstasy is absolutely, 100%, a problem for us in rural Ontario. Each long weekend in the summertime, the area I look after, Wasaga Beach... I've seen changes in six or seven years. We used to put a team out there to basically observe, and you could see changes. People would be using cocaine or hash or whatever, so they'd have their pipes with them and paraphernalia of that nature. Now when we go there, it's interesting because at 5 or 6 in the morning, when the streets clear up, there's nothing but a sea of empty water bottles. Obviously, the age group of people who are there is 16, 17, 18, 19, and maybe up to 23 or 24. That's the group that Ecstasy is targeting. To me, that clearly defines our mission in drug enforcement.

    We have a whole education process going on within policing itself to keep up with some of the changes. Ecstasy is everywhere in Ontario. The first undercover buy we had of any significance was 500 hits in a town just east of Thunder Bay. So you think of Ecstasy being in Toronto or wherever, but it's everywhere.

    The Chair: To clarify, Officer Barnum, in your comparison of the before scene with drug paraphernalia, it's easier to make a bust and more clear that there is illegal drug use. Water bottles, being legal and used for other purposes, make it harder to figure out who is doing what and therefore to arrest people or intervene in some way.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Correct. The challenges have changed for enforcement. We have to learn a whole new set of indicators and behaviors. Certainly, the challenges have changed. It was pretty straightforward before. We became used to it, of course, and now we're focusing on a different area.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I have brief questions.

    Actually, following up on your comments on Special K--the drug, not the cereal--it seems to me education, prevention, and even harm reduction are very closely related. I think everyone would agree education is very critical. The issue is probably how education is done and what the message is.

    Would you agree it's very important to actually get information out to potential user populations about the drugs that are hitting the streets?

    In your example of Special K, it's illegally being changed from a pill into a powder. Kids don't know what strength they're taking.The same is true of crack cocaine and heroin. Most of the overdoses in Vancouver, and maybe in Ontario, are a result of people not knowing what they're taking or the strength and purity of the heroin.

    Do you think it would be helpful to actually put out public information?

    I know the RCMP do drug testing. Maybe the OPP could do it as well. The information is not available to anyone. We often see a whole string of deaths because something hit the street and people didn't know what it was. They took it and, bang, that's it, they're gone.

    Would you see it as something that's useful in terms of prevention, education, and harm reduction?

    Secondly, in terms of education, I've talked to lots of young kids. I can see the drama of having a cop in the school. You talk about the street scene, what's cool, what isn't, and what's going to happen to you. In terms of realistic information about the health effects if you do use, you can put out a message that it is bad for you and don't do it. If it doesn't work, kids are not in a position where they're going to admit to an officer they are using.

    Would you agree it's very important and appropriate that we actually have, primarily, a health message in education for young people?

    Don't use. If you are going to use, this is what you have to be aware of, this is how you can help someone overdosing, and this is what you have to look for.

    It seems to me the DARE program is very focused on this not being good for you. It is true, but you're not a health educator. Talking about the health impact is something that is maybe more appropriately delivered by someone else.

»  (1720)  

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: The DARE program, of course, is geared to a certain age group and is in the schools.

    Ms. Libby Davies: How high up in grades do you go?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: How high?

    Ms. Libby Davies: Is it grade 10 or grade 9?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: No. The DARE program is in grades 6 and 7.

    I wanted to comment on the other comments you made in regard to getting information out there. I do think the police community is very good at getting the information out. I believe the substance abuse centres that put out pamphlets in regard to drugs on the street are very in touch with what's going on.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'd never heard of it before the deaths occurred. I've only ever seen information come out from the police where basically a number of people have already died from overdoses, never as a result of testing where the police may know something hitting the streets is really bad.

    The Chair: Can you describe what you do, if you do anything, about advising people when there are bad illegal drugs or legal drugs?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: We had a very personal incident that happened in Orillia, a small city with a population of 27,000. Detective Staff Sergeant Barnum was involved so I'll let him deal with the issue.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Yes, it was very unfortunate. It was probably one of the easiest educational messages I ever had to deliver, unfortunately. A 17-year-old girl from a high school in Orillia went to Toronto and tried Ecstasy for the first time and died. As a result of that there was a bit of an uproar in the town of Orillia with regard to what Ecstasy was all about. Fortunately, I was able to go to a meeting with about 300 people. Both parents and students showed up in the high school auditorium, and the message basically was one of health risk and also that this is how it can happen. It basically slapped everybody right in the face.

    I think that type of message, as you say, is after the fact, but sometimes that's simply what it takes, and I think the message the students in that school got was very clear and they now understand the whole process.

    I'd also like to add, with regard to DARE programs or going into the schools and doing presentations, we don't use scare tactics. But I think it would be terrific with regard to prevention and education if we went in and gave our side of the story and said, this is what happens and here are some real-life situations, and the next day somebody from the health unit came in and said, here's what happens from our side of the house. That would be all-encompassing, which again would reflect back to our recommendations that the whole picture—prevention, education, rehabilitation, treatment—has to go out. I think delivering all those messages to students would be terrific. So you'd have no—

    Ms. Libby Davies: Meanwhile, it's not done in any kind of systemic way. It varies from province to province, and maybe department to department, where the emphasis is.... I know kids I've talked to in Vancouver, if they are using, they're not going to tell the cop who's delivering that message, because they're already engaged in an illegal activity.

    So the real information they need about how they're harming themselves and what they need to do to protect themselves is lost, and I think that's a real tragedy.

    Det S/Sgt Rick Barnum: Yes, absolutely.

    The Chair: I have one point of clarification. Your Orillia example was great, but what I think we were trying to get at is if you know there's a possibility that in whatever town--we don't have to name any town--there is Ecstasy present and you make a bust or you even sample to figure out this stuff isn't the usual strength, do you alert people?

    In the city of Toronto, unfortunately, there's usually at least one death before they get the message out, or a couple, but as soon as they realize there is very strong stuff they alert everybody and say, look, if you're going to use, don't kill yourself; be aware. Do you do that?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: When the circumstances happen, yes, we do that. I know in Toronto, where there are various types of heroin, when they've had a different type and strength of heroin, as soon as they became aware of it they got it out.

    The Chair: So what's the process for the OPP? Do you do periodic buys? Do you do periodic testing? What is the process of figuring out that there is a problem?

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Actually, the OPP is not involved with chemical drugs to a great extent as far as that goes. Our drugs are a lot of soft drugs, marijuana and that. There's no policy in place for it, but if the circumstances dictate that we would find through an undercover buy that there was a dangerous drug that wasn't what it is per se...

    But the education is out there on Ecstasy. The people who die from Ecstasy... it's from the standard Ecstasy tablet, and certainly that education is out there.

    The Chair: Last, in Atlantic Canada we heard a lot about Dilaudid and prescription drug use being the drugs of choice, and they maintained that it wasn't unique to Atlantic Canada--and we aren't trying to paint Atlantic Canada with a certain brush--but that it was a rural problem more than an urban problem. We heard that in fact perhaps even if you cracked down on the illegal use of Dilaudid you might end up with a heroin problem as people sought a higher order of drugs in terms of intoxication or what have you.

    Is there a prescription drug problem, to the best of your knowledge, in rural Ontario, or smaller-town Ontario? Percodan, Percocet--all those things.

»  (1725)  

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: Yes, there is a problem in rural Ontario. There's a problem in the larger urban centres. We currently have three full-time officers attached to double-doctoring investigations totally. That's in cooperation with the Ministry of Health and funded through the Ministry of Health. Those officers are attached to London, Toronto, and to the Kingston area. Certainly it's regional.

    We see a lot of drug use in the Kingston area, and I would say that is because of the close proximity to the institutions there. And for people who live in the Kingston area, but in small-town Ontario, yes, there still is that type of... Our undercover officers who are out on the street right now--Detective Staff Sergeant Barnum said a current officer has said he is seeing more today than he's ever seen in his three or four years of policing in the areas with Percocet, Dilaudid, and the synthetic drugs.

    The Chair: This committee would be interested in any statistics or information about that kind of incident. It is particularly troubling that people are not just double-doctoring but getting prescriptions and selling part of them.

    Interestingly, your double-doctoring investigators are almost all in bigger centres, not in the rural environments. In Atlantic Canada it was more of a smaller-town problem than a bigger-city thing. Kingston, Toronto, and London are pretty big cities. I wonder about Moosonee, Sault Ste. Marie, and some of those areas.

    Det/Supt Jim Hutchinson: These officers have the freedom to travel across the province, but they are located in southern Ontario.

    The Chair: If you have any more information like that, it would be very helpful.

    We really appreciate the thoroughness with which you came to present to us today. You have obviously provided us with lots of information. We've asked you for some more, which is great for us and a lot of work for you. We appreciate the time you've taken, the work you do in our communities, and the dedication and excellence with which you operate. We wish you all very well and thank you.

    This committee will be hearing witnesses and receiving testimony until about the end of June. If there are other things beyond what you've already agreed to send us that you would like to send us, or if there is information about new occurrences or if there are people in your forces who would like to talk to us, Carole Chafe is our clerk and she would be happy to receive e-mails and distribute the information to all of us.

    We have several colleagues who are not here today but are also part of this. They will be reading both the presentation you gave and the transcript of the questions.

    Again, we really appreciate the benefit of your experience and knowledge. We thank you.

    The committee is adjourned.