SNUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 24, 2002

¹

1535

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

Mr. Bill Marra (Chair, Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, Federation of Canadian Municipalities)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

¹

1540

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Randy White

¹

1555

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Bill Marra

Ms. Janet Neves (Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities)

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Randy White

º

1600

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1605

Mr. Bill Marra

Ms. Janet Neves

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

M. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

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

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1620

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

º

1625

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1630

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Bill Marra

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Bill Marra

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Chantal Collin (Committee Researcher)

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Chantal Collin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

---

NUMBER 039

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 24, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order. We're very pleased to be here today to hear witnesses. I'll perhaps be a little more formal because of our interesting guests today.

    Pursuant to an order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on May 17, 2001, this committee is considering the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs. On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, we were referred the matter of Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act related to marijuana. These two bills have come to this Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. It's a fairly unusual instrument in the House of Commons, but for all intents and purposes, it looks like a regular committee room.

    Today our witness are from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Bill Marra is a councillor for....

    Mr. Bill Marra (Chair, Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): The City of Windsor.

    The Chair: Pleased to meet you, Bill. Welcome.

    He is also the chair of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. As a policy analyst from FCM itself, we have Janet Neves.

    Just so you know, Mr. Marra and Ms. Neves, we are being observed by a great group of young Canadians who have come from every part of this country and are participating in something called the Forum for Young Canadians. There are many future city councillors and members of Parliament among them.

[Translation]

    We are very pleased that you can attend this committee sitting, because it is important for you to have an opportunity to see what goes on here. Nearly all my colleagues believe that the bulk of the House of Common's work goes on here in committees. Today we have MPs with us from the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois. There are some absences as well. Everything that is said here is transcribed.

[English]

    This committee is a little different from some in that we're not terribly partisan while we're here, because we're all struggling with a very difficult issue.

    Without further ado, over to you, Mr. Marra.

    Oh, sorry.

[Translation]

    Pardon me, there is a point of order.

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Pursuant to our rules and in order to comply with the 24 hour notice rule, I submit two notices of motion which I shall read quickly, with no discussion at the moment; we will, however, be able to debate them tomorrow.

    The first motion reads as follows:

That this Committee unreservedly denounce the unjust and antidemocratic manner in which the government treated Keith Martin’s private member’s bill on the decriminalization of cannabis.

    The second motion is as follows:

That this Committee proceed with the distribution of documents only when they are available in both official languages.

    I am counting on you and assume that we will be able to discuss and agree to these two motions tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.

[English]

    The Chair: The committee will reconvene tomorrow at 3:30 in consideration of those two motions. We'll have the debate at that point in time.

    Now over to Mr. Marra.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Just to add a little bit more background information on myself, I'm certainly here in my capacity as a councillor and as the chair of the standing committee, but I found that it was interesting for the Senate committee to know I've also worked in the criminal justice field for approximately 15 years now, specifically with young offenders. That's what brings me here, out of that personal interest. I think it offers some different perspective, perhaps, from some of my other colleagues'.

    The Chair: Which capacity with regard to young offenders?

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Bill Marra: I worked for a number of years as a counsellor in a facility where they were in custody. I worked also for six years as a probation and parole officer. The majority of my caseload was young offenders. Currently I'm the executive director of an open custody facility in Windsor for male young offenders as well.

    The Chair: Great. Thank you.

    I hope none of these guys are going to be your future clients.

    Mr. Bill Marra: I'm sure they won't be.

    On behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, I would like to thank the members of your committee for the invitation to speak to you about the impact of illegal drugs on the local communities, the role of municipal government in addressing the drug problem, and FCM's work to assist communities.

    FCM has been recognized since 1901 as the national voice of municipal governments. FCM dedicates itself to improving the quality of life in Canadian communities. Its members include Canada's largest cities, small urban and rural communities, and all provincial and territorial municipal associations, representing more than 20 million Canadians.

    In 1997, FCM conducted a municipal needs assessment in collaboration with the National Crime Prevention Council and Justice Canada. A survey was sent to 200 senior elected municipal officials, police departments, first nations tribal councils, and members of the federal-provincial-territorial working group on crime prevention, to rate crime and disorder problems in terms of their effects on communities. The survey results ranked drug offences first, confirming that the drug problem was not isolated to any particular community but was of primary concern to all local governments.

    Personal safety is one of the most important factors in the quality of life of Canadians. Canadians are very proud of their safe communities, yet municipal leaders are faced with growing threats due to the pervasive impacts of drug abuse and organized crime.

    Municipalities are on the front line of combating drug-related crime. They bear the brunt of mounting costs for policing and enforcement. Their public health systems are strained by the spread of AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases related to injection drug use. They understand the frustration of inadequate institutional capacity to carry out effective and sustained prevention and educational programs, and to treat and cure drug addictions.

    Municipalities are not simply collections of problems. They are also repositories of creative and innovative problem-solving ideas. FCM uses two guiding principles in its approach to community safety and crime prevention. The first is that when it comes to identifying local crime problems and potential solutions, we believe municipalities are the experts. The second is that effective solutions are dependent on inter-agency cooperation and partnerships.

    Municipalities are a source of innovative approaches to prevention. Some of the areas of municipal expertise and jurisdiction where creative solutions could be applied under a municipal drug strategy include the administration of public and community health services. For example, there are opportunities to develop effective approaches to prevention focusing particularly on secondary and tertiary prevention such as housing, social service delivery, community policing, and recreational services.

    Through its policy and work, FCM supports Canada's national drug strategy, which includes the four-pillar approach of prevention, enforcement, treatment, and harm reduction. Prevention seeks to reduce the demand for drugs through education and awareness, law enforcement seeks to reduce the supply of drugs, while treatment and harm reduction strive to reduce demand while ensuring the health and safety of drug users and the community by minimizing the negative health effects of drug use.

    FCM's municipal drug strategy is a prime example of FCM's approach to crime prevention. The project is a three-year effort developed in collaboration with the health and enforcement in partnership committee, with the support also of the National Crime Prevention Centre, the Solicitor General of Canada, and Health Canada. FCM's municipal drug strategy helps municipal governments develop and implement local drug strategies with a focus on community mobilization and inter-agency cooperation and partnerships. The framework outlines principles to guide local initiatives while reflecting a national approach.

    In the first phase of the strategy, FCM defined guiding principles and conducted a needs assessment of municipalities with the assistance of academic experts. The assessment confirmed the need for municipal drug strategies and identified some of the tools and resources needed to support municipalities' efforts in this area.

    Phase two of the strategy, which is currently under way, is the pilot phase of the program in which nine communities were selected to apply the model of the municipal drug strategy in their community. The communities selected to participate include: Richmond, B.C.; Courtenay, B.C.; Prince Rupert, B.C.; Strathcona County, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; Thompson, Manitoba; Hawkesbury, Ontario; Salisbury, New Brunswick; and Mount Pearl, Newfoundland.

¹  (1545)  

    A recent motion passed by FCM's big city mayors calls for identifying several cities to carry out scientific trials of supervised consumption sites. This motion emerged from the health concerns about the growing problem of injection drug use in Canada.

    The health and social implications of injection drug use affect both the individual and the community. The harm reduction approach recognizes it is impossible to prevent all drug use and thus seeks to promote health by minimizing drug-related deaths, such as those from drug overdoses, and minimizing the risk of disease that can spread through shared needles among drug users, exposure of the general population to discarded needles, and blood-borne disease transmission.

    Most recently, Health Canada has begun exploring a pilot project of establishing supervised consumption sites that would operate within a legally sanctioned framework. The purpose of establishing the sites is to provide a safe and secure environment where drug users can inject in a clean environment, away from criminal activity and where they are in direct contact with health professionals trained in safe injection and overdose response. Such sites in Europe have resulted in increased public safety and decreased death and disease transmission.

    At the FCM big city mayors caucus in February of this year, a motion brought forth by the city of Vancouver's mayor, Philip Owen, was passed unanimously. The motion recommended three or four cities be identified to participate with Health Canada in scientific trials of supervised consumption sites. Winnipeg, Regina, and Edmonton spoke in support of the proposal, and other municipal governments, including Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Victoria, and Ottawa also expressed interest in participating in this scientific trial.

    FCM, along with the health and enforcement partnerships, have adopted the following guiding principles for the municipal drug strategy: prevention as the most cost-effective intervention; stakeholder participation as paramount; and the need for a balance between supply reduction and demand reduction.

    In its policy specific to the decriminalization of illicit drugs, FCM is opposed to legalization and decriminalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs. This position emerged from a resolution that was passed by FCM members in 1997. In fact there were two resolutions to that effect in 1997.

    In light of the position taken by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Canadian Bar Association to not oppose the decriminalization of cannabis, our board of directors recently passed a motion--and that was just in March--to undertake a study of the issue. We will bring a report to our full board meeting in September 2002.

    I can add that this caused considerable debate and discussion. In fact, my colleagues even expressed some concern at my attending this session because they wanted me to clearly state that our existing position is that we are opposed. But they comfortable enough for me to relay to you that we are reviewing it; we are studying it. It's been five years since that resolution was taken, and we're expecting considerable debate in September at our board meeting. We will report accordingly.

    FCM continues to support efforts that reduce the supply of drugs. At our last board of directors meeting, the board passed a resolution for tougher penalties for marijuana home growers. The resolution emerged out of the growing problem of home grow operations in southern Ontario and experience in other cities across Canada. Large-scale home grow operations have resulted in increased law enforcement costs, deterioration of housing used for home grow, and safety hazards associated with the operation.

    In summary, FCM supports a balanced approach to supply reduction through enforcement and demand reduction through prevention and treatment, while ensuring the safety and health of the community through harm reduction.

    Municipal governments are well equipped to identify and address the drug problem in their communities, as they are situated closest to the problem. However, national leadership is crucial to establishing a common direction for all communities across Canada. Federal funding for Canada's drug strategy, launched in 1987, has dwindled in recent years. A federal commitment to support Canada's drug strategy is needed in order to facilitate, expand, and sustain local drug strategy efforts.

    The effectiveness of this national leadership will depend greatly on the information gathered at the local level to determine the size of the problem and the impact of local efforts and to establish national direction. Again, standards and resources for information gathering would need to be supported at the federal level to enable and standardize data collection for reporting and decision-making.

    Furthermore, there is a need for significant investment by our federal government to address the root causes of crime and drug abuse, including poverty, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, the disintegration of families, and cultural alienation.

¹  (1550)  

    Municipal governments want to work closely with other orders of government to successfully address the problems associated with illicit drugs in Canada. Collaboration, partnerships, and resources are paramount to achieving this goal.

    Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be happy to answer any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marra.

    I'll turn now to Mr. White for the first round of questions.

    Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    Mr. Marra, I find a couple of things you said contradictory, so I want to pursue that.

    We've just learned another word, I think: consumption sites, the supervised consumption site. I think I've heard safe shoot-up sites, but I suppose it's now called consumption to make the idea a little more palatable.

    I find it contradictory where the FCM would say, “We could go along with the consumption/safe shoot-up site, but we are opposed to the decriminalization and legalization of drugs, basically”. The operation of a consumption site or a shoot-up site is such that you walk into a facility with your own heroin—usually heroin—regardless of quality. They buy it off the street. In fact, in some places, traffickers stand almost in line with those waiting to go into the facility, to sell. So it's kind of a convenient market for them.

    They walk into this facility. The police know they're there; they know they have drugs on them before they go in. They shoot up and leave. What is the difference between that and the legalization of heroin?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I do acknowledge that the message could certainly be interpreted as contradictory. As I've indicated earlier, the big city mayors caucus just met in February and adopted that position. I believe it was based on a resolution of European cities against drugs that was adopted in Stockholm some time ago. That was the premise of their desire to adopt such a resolution, and it was adopted unanimously.

    Regarding the position that FCM took in 1997, there was considerable debate before coming here, as I indicated earlier, and there was a desire to make a different decision, take a different position on this, if you will, so I could come to these proceedings and present that. It was a very divided board of directors. It was felt that the divisiveness was such that we had to defer the matter until our September meeting, which is our next meeting. I guess all I can say to you is that I do acknowledge that it tends to send two different messages.

    There seems to have been a considerable change in the board of directors since 1997, and there is a real desire to discuss this and perhaps contemplate a different position. I was charged with the responsibility of simply coming here today to reaffirm that there is an outstanding resolution from 1997 that stands pat right now. It will be discussed in September in the big city mayors caucus.

    They adopted the position they did because they felt that this might be an opportunity, on a trial basis perhaps, whether it be a consumption site or whatever other characterization there is out there for these sites. Because of the success in Europe, it may be something that some cities would be interested in.

    Some cities did express some interest. In fact, I can give you a more recent update. I believe it was just a few weeks ago, in March, that a meeting took place amongst a number of cities that had expressed some initial interest, and there was considerable debate about a proper legal framework for this initiative to even take off from the ground. Health Canada has indicated that they will be looking at some sort of legal framework to work within.

    The cities that did express the desire to look at the trial project in February have, to a certain degree, backed off a little bit, saying they're not quite ready for that yet. There are some that are still in the infancy stages of needle exchange programs, for example, but there are still cities that are interested in possible trial sites, and as it stands now, Health Canada is looking at some sort of legal framework to bring forward and discuss accordingly.

    Mr. Randy White: That's probably because some of those cities, like the one I come from, Abbotsford, British Columbia, are adamant that these facilities will not exist in their community. However, I do want to ask you, because FCM policy says this is what we believe in, that in no way ties mayors of municipalities into any particular position, does it?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Bill Marra: Absolutely not.

    Mr. Randy White: Okay.

    On the idea of tougher penalties for home grow operations, I do want to say that while that, too, is laudable—I can understand; I've been on a number of drug busts in home grow operations—the problem is not with the law. I think the problem is with the judiciary, which looks at it and says, that's just another home grow; on your way. So I think it's more than just having a law; it's having people who are in the courtrooms today deal with the law as it is.

    On harm reduction, I want to ask you, since you've been on this committee, which I presume has dealt with this, can you give me an idea of the components of harm reduction?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I'm going to turn to Janet. I was not part of the committee that met on harm reduction or the FCM big cities mayors caucus. Janet could perhaps provide us with some specifics.

    Ms. Janet Neves (Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): The discussion of harm reduction that took place at the FCM big city mayors caucus in February revolved around addressing the health concerns related to injection drug use. The idea of harm reduction recognizes that, while it needs to be reduced, drug use is taking place; from a health perspective, we need to address ways of limiting or reducing the spread of disease through injection use, for example.

    Mr. Randy White: I will give you some of the components of harm reduction I have heard about. These include the legalization of some drugs, needle exchanges, safe shoot-up sites or consumption sites, methadone treatment, the issuing of heroin in prescribed doses--those sorts of things. Are these FCM's parameters when it talks about harm reduction?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Those are the common elements we associate with harm reduction, yes.

    Mr. Randy White: There are people, including me, who would suggest that some of that is harm extension, not harm reduction. What do you think of this other terminology, harm extension?

    Do you see any philosophical direction with this harm reduction in terms of saying to a junkie that we know you are addicted, so come in and we'll give you a place to shoot up or we'll even give you some heroin or maybe we'll legalize it, as opposed to what we perhaps should do so as not extend that harm, but reduce it by way of rehabilitation facilities, detox centres, and so on?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Both the rehabilitation and intervention philosophies are important. Prevention is just as important, too, but at the same time, through harm reduction we are acknowledging to some degree the reality of the drug abusers who are out there and trying to minimize some of the harms--the risk of death, of the spread of disease, or of finding needles in our neighbourhoods.

    In my part of the city just last year a number of needles were found in a small parkette. When one or two needles are found, all of a sudden people think they have a drug epidemic in the neighbourhood. It's very real to them and it has to be responded to.

    I believe both those philosophies are applicable and very important.

    Mr. Randy White: Finally, how important is it to the FCM to implement all of these kinds of ideas as opposed to more detox centres? I've had a fair bit of experience with municipalities. They talk a lot about doing the right things, but when it comes to supplying funding or resources for short-term, long-term, or intermediate detox or rehabilitation centres, they're nowhere to be seen. Frankly, some of the ones I've dealt with would just as soon see them disappear.

    Where is the FCM in terms of supporting the other side of this, rehabilitation and detox? I don't see it in your proposal.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Bill Marra: Again, rehabilitation and anything associated with rehab, detox, or any type of treatment, is important, absolutely. It's certainly consistent with the four-pillar drug strategy we've adopted.

    I agree with you. It's easy to talk the talk sometimes, but that talk isn't always results oriented. In fact, I'd take it one step further. Municipalities even take advantage of zoning issues because of their preference not to see this type of problem in their backyards, but unfortunately the need is out there.

    FCM's position is that this is the four-pillar approach. We believe prevention, enforcement, treatment, and harm reduction are all equally important.

    We're looking to the federal government to create a national direction, a national scope, and we're suggesting that the municipalities are among your best partners in identifying or defining the problem. We are closest to the issue. We have some critical mass in our expertise in law enforcement. We want to work with the federal government accordingly.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. White.

    Maintenant Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Madam Chair. I too wish to welcome the students who are here today. I have three questions to ask someone who, while certainly no longer a student, was one no doubt in the past. My three questions are the following:

    First, can he provide us with a review of the major positions of his federation with respect to all the issues relating to prostitution, drugs and decriminalization? I gather there is a guideline indicating that the municipalities' skills and expertise in these areas need to be acknowledged. Is this what your federation wants?

    Unlike the previous intervenor perhaps, my Alliance colleague, I have a very clear understanding of the whole issue of the supervised sites strategy and its aim of harm reduction. Moreover, Members of Parliament this week received a study from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network funded by the Canadian Anti-Drug Strategy, which has an annual budget of $42 million. This study is somewhat along the same lines as your intervention. You have perhaps already studied it...

    I see the idea as follows: given the phenomena present in major centres: crime, poverty and homelessness, we want to ensure that, if they cannot be dissuaded from drug use, people can have access to injection drugs in the most sanitary and safe conditions possible.

    If I understand correctly, these are the representations you are making this afternoon: supervised or controlled sites are part of the goal of harm reduction, because in the major Canadian cities where there are the highest concentrations of addicts, this is the best way to do. Is this the first message you want to get across?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, it is the position of the big city mayors caucus that there's a strong possibility, given some of the success with European cities, that the controlled sites could indeed go a long way in reducing harm. Obviously there needs to be a substantive amount of work done, the legal framework of course being the priority.

    In terms of establishing it--locations, proper support for the sites--I personally have never had any experience or exposure to the sites, so I can't speak to you from any experience, but again the big city mayors caucus members feel that, yes, they would agree with the statement that there's a strong possibility that harm reduction could be achieved to a certain degree through controlled sites.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: My second question relates to page 5 of your brief. I have, moreover, proposed having Health Canada appear before us again, but I do not know what will come of my proposal. So, on page 5 of your brief, you indicate that Health Canada has begun exploring a pilot project of establishing supervised consumption sites, which would make one of your recommendations achievable. Can you tell us what progress Health Canada has made with this project?

    A year ago, there was a major leak of a document to the major dailies: that this project was being contemplated. I do not know whether Health Canada was at that point involved in making formal proposals to the big cities or their spokespersons. Are we to take it from your intervention this afternoon that Health Canada has made considerable progress with its proposals and that there would be a staffing process for resources and a commitment of funds, and that they would be involved in making direct proposals to the cities?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: I'm going to defer to Janet. She attended a meeting just a few weeks ago with Health Canada and the cities, who in February had extended some degree of desire to look at the consumption sites. There are some updates that I think you would find valuable.

    Ms. Janet Neves: At the meeting in March, which was co-organized with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Health Canada, there was discussion with the municipal government representation and law enforcement about the readiness of the municipalities that expressed interest in carrying out a scientific trial in their community. At that time, Health Canada did not make any funding commitments. There was more discussion on finding out about the readiness of local government in terms of carrying out a scientific site. There wasn't a direct commitment of funds made at that meeting. It was a meeting to begin discussion on obtaining commitment from municipal governments and seeing what the needs were in terms of moving forward.

    I guess the main discussion at that time, as Bill has mentioned, was the need for a legal framework to work within.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I find this a source of some concern. You will understand that there might be a terrible contradiction between the fact that a committee mandated by the House of Commons is preparing recommendations and... We do not know whether the committee will move along the lines of recommending supervised injection sites. I am in favour, personally, but what interests me is to know where Health Canada has got to with its proposals. I would appreciate it if the committee could meet with the same people you did. Were they at the deputy minister level, or directors of branches? It would be really very good of you if you could provide our clerk with the names of the people you met with, so that we could at least have the privilege of being at the same stage as you as far as this information is concerned.

    My third and last question is this. Your federation is made up of a variety of people, including mayors, with a variety of philosophies. Some, such as the mayor of Vancouver, are more inclined than others to be drug activists, others a bit more conservative. I do not know whether your federation has already taken a stand, as a federation, on the matter of the legalization of cannabis. Is this part of your mandate? Are you in a position to give us any indications which might help us have a better understanding of your federation's stand on this?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: The position I was asked to bring forward today is that our 1997 resolution clearly indicated opposition to any legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. All I can indicate to you is that the issue is under study. I'm not trying to evade your question; I'm just remembering the debate we had. It was considerable, and there was so much caution around the room.

    I want to respect my colleagues at FCM and bring forward this message. I commit to you to follow up, after our September meeting, on whatever progress, discussion or perhaps change in position that may occur. We will forward that information on Health Canada as well.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: That dates back to 1997. SInce then, there has been a federal election. There have probably even been elections within your own ranks. At any rate, the position you are expressing today is that you do not have a mandate to defend decriminalization. That is not your mandate at this time.

    For our own edification, when your federation adopts certain positions, this is done at your annual conference, is it not?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, it is. We meet quarterly and have a process by which resolutions that are adopted at our quarterly board meetings are then brought forward to the annual conference. There is another process where, if there are emergency resolutions, they can be expedited and adopted prior to the annual conference. So I'm anticipating some results by September.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I have a piece of good news for you. Imagine, my leader, the sympathetic and likeable Gilles Duceppe, is invited to speak at your next meeting, There is one scheduled in the weeks to come and he will be making a presentation.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: We are very fortunate indeed and pleased to hear this.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a scoop.

    The Chair: Great!

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe he will be sharing the floor with Stephen Harper.

    The Chair: I trust everything will go well for him.

    M. Réal Ménard: I appreciate your concern, Madame Chair.

    The Chair: Are there any questions?

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): I have one, Madam Chair.

[English]

    I have one.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marra, Ms. Neves, thank you for coming. I also wish to welcome all those who are listening in. Welcome to the House of Commons.

    I question the representativity of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities as far as Quebec is concerned. I see your position is clear, but how can I assume that this is the position of the city of Laval, for instance, which I represent in the House of Commons? I would like to hear your comments on this, because if I decide to show an interest in your position, I would like to know how representative it is of my city.

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: Thank you for the question. FCM represents over a thousand members. Laval is certainly a member of FCM, and one of your councillors is on our board of directors, if I remember correctly.

    We represent 20 million Canadians and all the provincial and territorial associations. It's very inclusive and representative. In the scheme of things, it would certainly be representative of our Ontario caucus and our friends on the board of directors for the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: On page 2 of your brief, you speak of the mounting costs of policing and law enforcement because of the increase in drug abuse and organized crime. What is this increase in costs? Are you in a position to provide us with a year-to-year comparison? I understand that the municipalities are on the front lines as far as the drug problem is concerned, because that is where people live.

    Could you then provide us with some statistics to illustrate these mounting costs to which you refer?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Marra: I don't have statistics, but if we have statistics I will forward them to you. I'll answer your question using a couple of examples of the increased challenges and costs in policing.

    I understand--and certainly you will appreciate this more than I--that in the province of Quebec there are many challenges around fortified bunkers, and issues and challenges associated with their evolution and that component of organized crime.

    We took a resolution on home grow operations just a couple of months ago. Those operations apparently require quite a degree of police investigation over a period of time. Many resources have been expended to investigate home grow operations, initiate arrests, and hopefully secure some prosecution.

    I guess from a really parochial point of view...I'm from a border community--there are other border communities across Canada--and there are different challenges, as you can appreciate. I want to kind of slip this in because whatever changes occur with any type of legislation on illicit drug use, the impact could be realized a little differently in border communities. Visitors, unfortunately, tend to have less regard for legislation in the places they visit. I'll just throw that in there for a parochial sense, to keep that component in mind.

    The costs of investigating and policing have increased--just the additional costs of doing business and paying for the resources. I understand, from my limited experience with our police services board, the time required for extensive investigations is absolutely draining on resources. We certainly have many joint force operations among the RCMP, the provincial police forces, and local police forces. But at the end of the day, the single taxpayer is always paying for that service, regardless of what level of policing is involved.

    So I don't have any specific examples, but I will endeavour to find out if we have statistics. I would be happy to forward them to you.

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Ms. Allard?

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have no more questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.): I'd like to ask a question about politics, of all things. It seems to me we have seen a dichotomy in the way Canadians respond politically to this serious issue of drugs. Mr. White has alluded to it, in making reference to the upstanding citizens of Abbotsford and region.

    Our committee has been to some cities where the drug problems and challenges of illegal drug use are really prominent and in your face, whether they're on the front page of the newspaper, on the TV news, or they have bodies in the street and needles in the park, etc. Those places seem to be more sanguine in saying we have to do something--anything--whereas in places where the problem is less visible, people are more content with the status quo.

    Have you encountered that same paradigm at FCM? If you have, can you give us a better definition or description of it? That's certainly an issue for the committee and the House of Commons, when we're called upon to address solutions.

    Mr. Bill Marra: I'll answer your question by saying yes, we've experienced it, and I think the recent debate over whether or not we want to even consider changing our position on this 1997 resolution... You articulated it quite accurately. I think it reflects the differences in the communities across the country. It reflects geographical location. It reflects the amount of criminal behaviour that communities are exposed to. It reflects a lot of different cultural, geographical, and situational characteristics. That's the beauty of the diversity of this country. That's the end, quite frankly. We have representatives from coast to coast, from the territories. And, yes, we do experience that, and I anticipate, as I indicated earlier, it's going to be quite a discussion, quite a debate, in September because of that.

    Now should that take away from this initiative, or this focus, or creating a national focus and direction? Absolutely not, because I think it's important that there be some sort of a national scope. Certainly then you have the opportunity from municipalities to adopt, to take advantage of resources, and to create some degree of consistency with program delivery and to look at the four-pillar approach, whether it be prevention, enforcement, treatment, or harm reduction.

    But to answer your question simply, yes, we do experience that at FCM as well.

    Mr. Derek Lee: The four pillars you just mentioned are not necessarily pigeonholed into constitutional jurisdictions. We're not too sure where harm reduction is. Prevention--maybe that's education and other things. But what I want to ask is if municipalities, as a level of government, are called upon to deal with this, if they're forced to use the criminal law prohibition template, then municipalities are going to pay for this big time in their policing and interdiction costs. That's one way of looking at it.

    If we can attack the problem using the health care model, then I would suggest to you that cities would not be alone. It might be cheaper to use a health clinic than a police division. Health care costs are borne more by the province than they are by municipalities. Wouldn't municipalities have an interest therefore in promoting the health care model as opposed to the law and order model, because it's going to cost the cities less money? In the end we can't write one special criminal law for Moose Jaw and a separate one for Halifax. We can only have one criminal law. But if you have health clinics out there, you can put them up and take them down wherever you want, wherever the problem exists.

    Mr. Bill Marra: I do understand your point. Whatever approach, whatever resources are required, I can assure that municipalities would always look to other levels of government for their assistance and their cooperation, but prevention, enforcement, treatment, harm reduction--I'm going to rely on my personal experience for a moment--are all equally important. The drug abuse is symptomatic of some other underlying issues with that young person, with that adult. There are other issues that need to be addressed.

    Certainly you want to create some sort of a strategy to deal with the drug issue. All you're doing at that point is dealing with some symptom. After that there have to be resources and structures and interventions to look at what led to that behaviour, what led to the drug issue, whether it be mental health issues, homelessness, some other trauma or emotional breakdown in that person's past, in their history.

    That's the kind of challenge we see in the facility I work in on a day-to-day basis. Certainly you get them in, you get them dried out, you want to get them off the drugs, clean them up as much as you can. But let's find out what the heck is going on here. What led this person to be where they're at? Why did they commit the crime? Why were they possessing narcotics? Why were they selling them? That's where as many resources as possible must be concentrated. To simply suggest that we're going to introduce a site where you can safely consume drugs and that'll end the problem--absolutely not. There has to be this multi-pillar approach and you have to look at all issues. Stopping the drugs is fine. That's important. Because if you can't get off first base, you certainly can't run over to second.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Derek Lee: The cities are paying the bill on the police forces. The police forces apparently do some education.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, they do.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I think it's dumb to have policemen doing teaching and it's just as dumb to have teachers doing policing. But police do carry a large burden. They say they do it because they get contact with their people, with their jurisdiction, which for them is a good thing.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm trying to encourage you to acknowledge that there would be benefits for municipalities in getting a more complex model to address the drug problem.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I have no problems with police teaching and warning kids in school about drugs, but—

    Mr. Bill Marra: I do acknowledge that, Mr. Lee, absolutely. I guess my only concern was that I didn't want to put more emphasis on one area than others, but I do agree with your statement.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Just before I turn to Mr. Sorenson, I would say to the people from Forum for Young Canadians that there is an opportunity for the people in your program who have been here today to follow these hearings and to participate. The e-mail address is snud@parl.gc.ca, and we would love to have your input. Thank you and good luck.

    Sorry for interrupting, Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: That's okay. I had wrapped up.

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. We appreciate you being here today.

    We've been travelling through the country for the last month or month and a half, and we have seen the devastating effects on individuals. We have seen young people in detox centres and rehabilitation centres, young people with their whole future ahead of them who have been set back in life because of pills and drugs and all kinds of things. Some of them are drugs we hear about and recognize as street drugs--heroin, cocaine, marijuana. Others are drugs that aren't perhaps even thought about from a young person's perspective as being addictive drugs--little pills with Playboy pictures on them, or happy faces, that drive children 13 or 14 years old into addiction.

    We've seen pictures of children who were on Ecstasy for up to two weeks, seven years later. I would say those pictures would certainly frighten some of the members of this committee, because we've seen long-range effects.

    We talk about harm reduction, and we've heard of safe injection sites or consumption sites, as you've called them. We've discussed a range of difficulties that have stemmed from them. We recognize that people can come in and shoot up in a safe area, but even yesterday I heard from a witness, who had one of these safe injection sites, talk about a soccer field just a few blocks away where many games have had to be cancelled because of the needles that have been found on the soccer field. The cost to municipalities and communities is huge and sometimes is not directly assigned or given to the spinoff effects of these harm reduction sites.

    Maybe what I should do is bring this back to what this committee is trying to accomplish. We have recognized that the drug strategy of this country is failing. We have seen a liberalization of law, and the chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak. We're paying for it.

    I'm going to ask you a question that has been asked at pretty well every committee meeting. If you were to give two specific recommendations to this committee to address the drug strategy of tomorrow, the drug strategy of the future, what would those two be?

    You mentioned in your policy here that prevention is the most cost-effective intervention. Would you include deterrents? Would you include increase of penalty as harm reduction? If we're going to have safe injection sites and if we're going to have needle exchanges and if we're going to have further liberalization--what may be viewed as liberalization of law and legislation--if we were to get more into the prevention and maybe a stricter law, could that be viewed as harm reduction?

    I'll leave it at that for now.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Bill Marra: Prevention, deterrents, and increased penalties could absolutely all be well defined within the harm reduction scope.

    If there were two recommendations we could leave today, what would they be? The first one, I believe, would be that the four-pillar approach of prevention, enforcement, treatment, and harm reduction be the premise of any national focus, with proper resources, obviously. The second would be that municipalities become partners in service delivery, in identifying the problem and creating the scope for what kind of intervention or resource should be applied to that municipality.

    So what you're creating, obviously, is a national, well-defined scope and direction, at the same time allowing for some individualized interpretation and application of whatever your strategy is going to be. I agree with your first comments. Yes, you can include all of those in harm reduction, certainly.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Do you think in your municipality, in your community, and in this country we're well informed as to the potential harms of the drugs? Mr. Lee just mentioned that in his opinion police officers should not be teaching about drugs. My feeling is that they're some of the best teachers. They're the ones who have been at the scene of the accident. They're the ones who've visited the homes where drugs have torn the families apart. They're the ones who've seen the devastation and who are called to all kinds.... They're the best teachers. The DARE program is a program that's highly successful, one the police feel very positive about. The response I receive from my constituency, letters from children, applaud police officers.

    Would you concur that the efforts by the police in prevention and education are integral parts of the responsibilities of fighting drugs and use by children and of educating them?

    Mr. Bill Marra: The first part of your question was, do we know enough yet, or are people well informed on the issue of drugs and the impact of drugs? I would say absolutely not. And I say that to you not only in my role as a municipal councillor but certainly in my role of working with young people who are victims of this unfortunate situation.

    As far as policing is concerned, I'm going to respond with a certain degree of bias. I'm a member of our police services board, and I chair a community crime prevention committee. We're very active in the community through community police services. I can tell you that from our perspective, in my municipality, it's been very successful.

    Part of the problem has traditionally been a very negative stereotype towards law enforcement. I think the way you can deal with that is to confront it head on and get your law enforcement people into the community, into the schools, and the earlier the better. The kids are never too young. Get the police in there when the kids are in junior kindergarten or even nursery school for that matter. You have to convey the message early, you have to convey it consistently, and you have to convey it in a very strong way so that it's understood on a very regular basis and throughout their education. This is what we mean when we talk about working with young people and getting the message out there in a preventative way.

    Did I answer your question?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I have a couple of questions that dovetail nicely with that. With regard to getting the message out to young people, what message is that?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Really, the message is sometimes as basic as say no to drugs. I know it's an old cliché, one that's been around for a long, long time, but when you're dealing with five-, six-, and seven-year-olds, you have to keep it that simple. You have to keep it that consistent.

    If we had things our way in my field, working with young people, we'd be in the schools that early, at that young age, and communicating to them the harms. Certainly, one could argue that you may be exposing them a little too early to that kind of language or environment or potential risk, but we would argue the opposite, that the message should be delivered early and often. You do it through whatever positive images are in their lives, whether it be teachers, certainly the parents, who have to play a critical role, and law enforcement.

    The Chair: That is interesting. Part of the challenge is that we're trying to find someone who has done some more in-depth analysis of the DARE program, which clearly works for some kids.

    Ultimately, we hope that what we're doing is ensuring our children grow up to make healthy choices when faced with whether to smoke or not--I would have a preference that they not smoke--or whether or not to consume excessive amounts of alcohol, prescription drugs, or illicit drugs.

    But to my way of thinking, the message isn't “Just say no”; it's “Make choices that are appropriate for you”. “Just say no” would have to include telling your parents to not even have that glass of wine at dinner. Yet societally, and in fact for many people, it could be health promoting to have that glass of wine. But it is a drug.

    What does FCM include in its definition of drugs? Are you also trying to include, especially in your committee's work, some further initiatives in terms of the choices that young people and all of us have in our communities? Are there opportunities to exercise our choice to say yes to endorphins and the healthier kinds of altered states?

    This is in fact what people do to some extent. Children turn their heads upside down or spin round and round to feel what it's like to be in an altered state. Those are appropriate. It's not a problem, unless you fall off a step or something. But are you putting forward an understanding of what the risks are and what's appropriate, and also ensuring that when people say yes to things like endorphins there are facilities there for them, trails or things such as that in their communities?

    Are you working with health officials? Certainly, there is a problem in smaller communities across the country that gets overshadowed to some extent by the bigger communities' problems, with obvious signs of heroin use and what have you. There is a serious problem with people thinking that getting prescription drugs from a doctor is okay and there are no risks associated with those.

    Has your group had any contact with this issue or are there any local programs and initiatives to ensure that people are getting proper information about the use of Valium or Dilaudid or any of the prescription drugs turning up in many of our communities?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I am going to respond to all of your questions.

    To go back to your first comment, I agree with you. Perhaps I oversimplified things when you asked me the question about the type of message.

    There has to be a message and there has to be an explanation associated with it. When we talk about messages for young people about the concerns we have, the simple message might work for some, but there are those who have other issues. What you're saying is certainly symptomatic of something more serious. Presumably there would be structures that would provide proper intervention.

    I am going to look to Janet to interject here because I don't know if we have an FCM definition of the grouping of drugs we are considering in this discussion.

    Janet, have you come across anything in your research?

    Ms. Janet Neves: No.

    Mr. Bill Marra: There's never really been a position taken or a definition formed or defined, Madam Chair.

    As far as the facilities available for the release that comes from more appropriate behaviours, a type of release where there's less risk, again, we haven't had any discussion or taken a position on this. Certainly, we endorse the allocation of resources to municipalities for the creation of recreational facilities and proper places for kids to go after school or on weekends to engage in proper, risk-free behaviours, but I don't believe FCM has taken a position on it, per se, in the context of this discussion.

    You raise a very interesting point on prescription drug issues. I agree with your concerns about the trends out there toward a growing problem with prescription drug abuse. Again--I hate to say this three times in a row--we have not taken a position on that within the context of this discussion either.

    Certainly, we will bring these comments back to the board and to my committee, which I've only been chairing since March.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: It's been a bit of a trial by fire already.

    It's also happens with OTC drugs, of course, and there doesn't have to be any interaction with a doctor. People can use Robaxacet to excess. You shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle while taking cough syrup with codeine, or any of these pain medications. Yet people think if it's sold in a pharmacy, it has to be healthy. We know that people who have the potential to become addicted can end up using some of these substances when they can't get access to some of the others, and this forms part of the context we live within when trying to make more appropriate choices.

    Having heard some of the testimony in Halifax in particular about some really innovative ways to educate people and thinking about what you do in your day job, I suggest it would be important for you to check out some of those initiatives as well. Perhaps FCM can get behind this in terms of education.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, we'll do that, and we'll include this in our discussion in September as well when we look at the resolutions again.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Is there any breakdown in your community or that FCM could do to help us quantify the dollars that are spent in this country? The Auditor General has identified that Canadians think we have a balanced approach. Balance usually means 50-50. Yet at the federal level, which is all the federal Auditor General can do, she has identified that 95% of our dollars are spent on reducing supply—policing, corrections, border controls, things like that. Only 5% is spent on reducing the demand—corrections programs that deal with addictions, RCMP officers who educate in many communities through the DARE program, and others.

    So part of the issue with that allocation is, of course, as Mr. Lee identified, we don't provide hospitals directly or treatment facilities, so we don't have those numbers. We don't do the actual education in schools. So it's a bit hard for us to do the right comparison and know what all is being done in these areas.

    But I think it was partly alluded to in some of the questions that it's a bit frustrating, for instance, that on the one hand we're spending a lot of money policing, and yet there could be cost savings if there was a demand reduction.

    If the work you do as a parole officer and working with young offenders reaps the rewards it should, we'll have a demand reduction for some of those kids...or a treatment program, yet people say, we get to the doors, we have the person ready to do treatment, and there isn't a facility.

    This committee will have to try to figure out how to recommend that some of those dollars be spent differently. Again, with that federal-provincial-municipal split, it could be a bit of a challenge. But do you have any information about what you're doing at the local level, or is there a possibility we could try to tease out some of those numbers? Do you have the capacity to communicate with your members and say, can anyone do a quick audit and see what would fall into the four pillars, or even the two?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I believe we have some information already, which we'll forward to you. Janet and I will discuss possibly canvassing our members as well. We'll have everybody do that, certainly, in a timely way.

    The Chair: Okay. We've asked the provincial guys to try to do it, to figure out if they can tease out any numbers.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Sure. It's a valid point. I've heard a lot of different ratios over the years, but I think that's a very valid concern. So yes, we'll do that.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Ultimately we may not have any more money to spend, but we want to figure out if there's a way to suggest that people spend it differently.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Reallocate it.

    The Chair: As you mentioned, it's all the same taxpayer.

    Does anybody else have anything more? Mr. Sorenson?

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Just to confirm, you anticipate that the FCM will be dealing with this issue, among many others, of course, in September.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes. We have our conference next month, and our next board meeting is in September.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I see. So there may be a political product available for our consumption by September.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: That might be helpful. We will be reporting in November, according to the current schedule.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: By the way, did you mention the municipality from which you're elected? I'm just curious.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes. I'm from Windsor, Ontario.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Bill Marra: You're welcome.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Has FCM endorsed the four pillars?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: It has.

    In reconsidering the issue, do you think there's a possibility they may generate a program that allows municipalities to cherry-pick initiatives from a list that would be recommended to the federal and provincial governments?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Ideally, philosophically, that's the way the FCM operates, as far as national programs are concerned, certainly, but allowing municipalities to cherry-pick or define what's appropriate for their municipalities to respond to their needs. So I'll answer that by saying, yes, I believe that would be the case.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Do you think your members feel that they are on the front lines on this issue, as opposed to any other level of government? I have a sense that the municipalities are on the front lines in many ways.

    We talk about a national drug strategy. We design programs and spend tax dollars. We have our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have international treaties, we have drug interdiction programs, but when it comes to the street corner where you have a problem, the feds really aren't there; it's the municipalities. Would you agree with that?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I'd be surprised if any of my colleagues answered that question by saying no, they don't feel they're on the front lines. Absolutely, the answer would be yes, and I'm very confident of that.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Some municipalities are likely to be enthusiastic partners if there is to be a rethinking of how we address this, then.

    Mr. Bill Marra: I think they would be at varying degrees, but yes, there would be partnerships available.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    The Chair: If I may continue on that with respect to the front lines, obviously the municipalities face issues--and you have mentioned some of them--in terms of increased policing and property crimes. Perhaps the incidents within your community wouldn't necessarily all be municipal and would be a bit more under provincial jurisdiction, but is there an order of priorities in terms of the impact of illegal drugs at this point?

    Mr. Bill Marra: It would depend on who you ask. I think if you speak with Mayor Owen of Vancouver, he would have one answer as far as the challenges faced with having the drugs come into the country are concerned, specifically with the port or the point of entry and the challenges there, whereas other cities may define the priority a little differently, whether it be--

    The Chair: Yes, but excluding border points, which are really more federal in that particular case, isn't the most visible aspect of the problem property crime and increased policing and things for most municipalities?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Absolutely. It would be.

    The Chair: Some people argue that some of that stuff, the property crime particularly, is due to the fact that if you have to feed your habit, you're going to have to steal things because it's almost impossible, especially if you're ill and have a habit, to get gainful employment that would provide the kind of revenue necessary to buy those drugs, which become quite expensive. We heard about people in Halifax with a $180 habit and things like that. I'm sure there are people with worse.

    The principle of supply and demand would suggest that if there were a different distribution system or if there were some legality to some of these things, the price would be reduced greatly. Is that something FCM is going to be talking about?

    Mr. Bill Marra: I believe that will form part of our discussion in September, yes. I'll make sure that it does.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: It's a bit of a challenge. Certainly, with respect to prescription drugs and their misuse, to some extent the price drove some people to use because they figured it must be really good if it was forty bucks a pill.

    Mr. Bill Marra: It's interesting. For a period of time when I did some probation and parole work I carried a split caseload for a while, and I found that for whatever reason, prescription drug abuse was much more prevalent in my adult caseload, regardless of socio-economic background or culture. The adults seemed to abuse the prescription drugs. I guess part of the reason is that it's probably a little easier for them and a bit more creative getting them.

    The Chair: They can get to a doctor.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Absolutely. And we found the illicit drug use to be much more prevalent with the young offender caseloads we were dealing with at the time. It's a very valid point.

    The Chair: Just while we're on this aside, was it primarily marijuana in your young offender caseload, or were there other illicit drugs?

    Mr. Bill Marra: It was primarily marijuana with the caseloads I was dealing with, although Ecstasy has certainly become more and more of a challenge in municipalities, certainly in ours, and significantly so.

    The Chair: What are some of the harm reduction things you're doing with regard to the use of Ecstasy?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Right now I won't even say education. I'll say there's some sort of a public relations strategy, if you will, where after a bust the police are out there showing what they've done and communicating to the community that this is bad. If there's an incident where somebody has been hurt, they try to communicate that as much as they can.

    I'm minimizing it to a certain extent. I think the schools--

    The Chair: They could use water cannons or make sure water is available, because it seems that one of the reasons kids get into serious trouble is the dehydration and the heat.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, that as well. And there's even some zoning—

    The Chair: On raves?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes. There are some zoning strategies we're considering at the municipal level on our council, certainly. This has become more of an issue for us over the last couple of years, especially with the American clientele. We have a small downtown, but we have a capacity for about 20,000 spaces in our liquor-licensed establishments. It gets pretty interesting on the weekends.

    The Chair: Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White: I suspect we're in political gridlock here. We have three levels of government, four if you include school districts. We have levels of government in which basically no one really wants to say let's decriminalize or legalize, or let's put up a safe shoot-up site, to call it something else. In this country, I'm sure we're going around in circles on this issue, and I think even the FCM is a reflection of this political gridlock. Some say, yes, we should do something. Others say, no, we had better not, because it's not a good idea to play with this thing. I suspect that's why, at the federal level over the years, there hasn't really even been a study on the issue since 1972.

    No one wants to put up their hand and say, yes, I'm for it, in case they lose votes as a result. And they will lose votes either way. Either way, this is unpopular to somebody regardless of what the issue is.

    I don't know where this is all going to end. Even if this committee says yes, for instance, we agree with harm reduction, isn't it within the parameters almost of a municipality to determine whether or not they want it?

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes.

    Mr. Randy White: And within municipalities, some do and some don't.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Right.

    Mr. Randy White: So I just wanted to make that statement. This isn't an easy issue, because as most surveys say, 50% almost want to do this and 50% want to do that.

    Mr. Bill Marra: I strongly agree with you, Mr. White. Again, I'm looking forward to September, but I'm sure it's going to be quite a discussion.

    Mr. Randy White: Yes, we're going to have a real great discussion here. You know, this is one of the few non-partisan committees. I couldn't even tell you, if Kevin and I agree, and we go back to our caucus, whether our caucus would agree, even on changing one item, much less 20 or 30. I just wanted to let you know it's not just the FCM who has this problem, but also the provincial and federal governments. We've all got the problem.

    Mr. Bill Marra: Yes, I'm sure.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

    Mr. Sorenson, you mentioned a safe injection site with needles next to a soccer field. To my knowledge, there are no safe injection sites. I wonder if you can tell us what community you were referring to, and maybe Mr. Marra can get some more feedback, because there are no safe injection sites in Canada at this point in time.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: There are, however, places where--

    The Chair: Where lots of people shoot up?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: —communities have banded together, and it's well known that in these areas drug use is rampant. I'm not saying it's on the streets. What this individual told me was, in discussions about safe injection sites, the community recognizes what happens when all these individuals come together. They have a soccer field right now where games have been cancelled because needles are all over the place. My question to them is whether this is going to improve with a safe injection site. Their opinion was that it would only get worse, and the individual categorically said no. So that's all I'm saying.

    The Chair: What community are they talking about?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: To tell you the truth, I do not know which community he was referring to.

    The Chair: This committee needs to know that, because by its very nature a safe injection site would have a sharp exchange. You wouldn't be walking out and tossing your needles into a soccer park. You'd actually have to drop your needles in the exchange. I think they are disposed of properly.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I may have misconveyed information because it may have been a needle exchange that he was referring to.

    A voice: That's more common.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's what he was referring to.

    The Chair: Okay. Well, let's keep our terminologies straight.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes. Well, I'm not sure. It was probably a needle exchange he was making reference to.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Marra, did you have any other...

    Mr. Bill Marra: No, I don't.

    The Chair: If you do have a possibility of finding out for us that community, that would be helpful.

    Ms. Neves and Mr. Marra, thank you very much for coming before this committee today and for the hard work that you've put into both coming to your position and preparing your presentation. We know that FCM performs pretty important work in helping all of our communities exchange good information and have a better organized country. So keep up the good work, and in your own careers, particularly with young offenders and as a city councillor. If you do have any other information, or if any of your individual members want to participate or send us information, Carol Chafe, our clerk, would be happy to receive it and then distribute it in both official languages to everybody.

    Mr. Bill Marra: We will do that, and we will communicate with you following our meeting in September as well. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, and if there's anything interim, we'd love to have it. The sooner we get stuff the better, because we have to report in November 2002.

    Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, before I adjourn, we were going to do future business; we don't have a quorum to do that, but I'll tell you what it was.

    Can I distribute to you this information and we'll get it to everybody else's office? This is a proposed witness list for a meeting that will take place in June--June 17 through June 22. If people could give us back their feedback or concerns, the sooner we get that the better, and then we can communicate with these individuals so they can all be lined up for that particular week.

    Mr. Randy White: I'm having difficulty with them because every single one of them looks to be in favour of one position.

    The Chair: No.

    Ms. Collin.

    Ms. Chantal Collin (Committee Researcher): I prepared the list for that reason, to try to avoid that.

    When you see there that some people are listed as key contacts, those are government people, and they are the ones who could direct you to all types of information you may want on their drug policy. I also included here, because I knew you had some interest in Sweden, an expert on Sweden's policies on drugs.

    Mr. Randy White: I met several people at the IDEAS conference. I was looking at their résumés, and they live where we're going.

    The Chair: I had mentioned that too.

    Ms. Chantal Collin: This is very preliminary. I just prepared it overnight.

    The Chair: So if you could give us your feedback on that... and we'll get in touch with the other members. Perhaps we can do that tomorrow.

    The meeting is adjourned.