SNUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

·

1330

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

Ms. Ellen Sanderson (Addictions Coordinator, Rocky Mountain House Native Friendship Centre)

·

1335

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose (Executive Director, Métis Indian Town Alcohol Association)

·

1340

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson (Chief Executive Officer, Native Counselling Services of Alberta)

·

1345

·

1350

·

1355

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier (Program Manager, Native Addictions Services Society)

¸

1400

¸

1405

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

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

¸

1410

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mr. Allen Benson

¸

1415

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

¸

1420

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

¸

1425

Mr. Allen Benson

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

Mr. Doug Bellerose

¸

1430

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

¸

1435

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

¸

1440

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

¸

1445

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

¸

1450

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mr. Allen Benson

¸

1455

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

The Chair

¹

1500

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

¹

1505

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Meier

A voice

Mr. Shawn Meier

Ms. Ellen Sanderson

Mr. Doug Bellerose

The Chair

Mr. Doug Bellerose

¹

1510

The Chair

Mr. Allen Benson

¹

1515

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

---

NUMBER 045

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1330)  

[English]

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

    We are the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. This committee, which is quite unusual because it's a special committee, was set up following an order of reference from the House of Commons on May 17, 2001, to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs. It is an extremely broad mandate. As of this April 17, we were also given the subject matter of a private member's bill, Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in terms of marijuana.

    This committee has representatives from all political parties, although at this present time we have just Dominic LeBlanc, a member of Parliament from New Brunswick, and me, the member of Parliament for Burlington. We both happen to be Liberals, but the committee has worked in a fairly non-partisan way, and there are lots of questions we'll ask that don't have any political philosophy attached to them. We're just trying to get to the bottom of some of the issues. We sometimes take adversarial stands, just to hear what people have to say. People who are reading the testimony will see that from time to time.

    We have with us our two researchers, Chantal Collin and Marilyn Pilon. They work for all the members of the committee. Eugene Morawski is our interim clerk. Most of you probably dealt with Carol. We have a team of interpreters, for those of you would like to listen in English or French, and we have a great team of people who keep track of all the recording and the sound.

    From the Rocky Mountain House Native Friendship Centre we have Ellen Sanderson; from the Métis Indian Town Alcohol Association, Doug Bellerose, executive director; from the Native Counselling Services of Alberta, Allen Benson, CEO; and from Native Addictions Services, Shawn Meier, program manager.

    Welcome to all. As I mentioned, I'll ask you to make an opening presentation of roughly 10 minutes. There will be lots of time for questions and answers, and for wrap-up statements at the end.

    Ms. Sanderson.

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson (Addictions Coordinator, Rocky Mountain House Native Friendship Centre): Good afternoon.

    I've been involved with addictions for many years. I overcame addictions myself 10 years ago. Today I'm employed as the only addictions coordinator in Rocky Mountain House.

    The centre played an important role in my recovery. Without them I wouldn't have found my spiritual path, which to me is very important to healing. I learned that through the Nechi program, which is part of Poundmaker, as you know. This helped me become motivated to help other individuals to recover.

    Today many of the addicts I see face the same barriers I saw, and many more, due to the many new diseases and drugs present today. Today I would like to address some of these issues and suggest some possible alternatives or solutions.

    The complexity of the addictions is one of the greatest barriers we see. There are usually multiple factors affecting each individual, ranging from health--hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, cirrhosis of the liver, and FAS/FAE, and others that I've listed in the report--to justice to lack of basic social skills and life skills; family issues, ranging from lack of parenting skills to family violence to no family supports; and lack of housing. The housing that is there is unstable and unhealthy.

     The biggest one is residential school effects: loss of cultural identity; physical and sexual abuse, not only in the schools but also in the foster system. There are four reserves in our community. Another barrier affecting treatment is transportation. A lot times, many of the centres are 800 kilometres away, in Cardston and Bonnyville.

    We recommend that a task force for aboriginal treatment services develop a long-term plan centered around a holistic way of healing, looking at the whole individual, not only the individual aspects of an addiction. This would include strategies for culturally based relapse prevention programs and building community support networks.

    In the past, addictions counsellors worked only with addictions, but today many counsellors realize that a multitude of factors is involved, and some strive to do it all. Counsellors are not able to successfully work with all aspects of each individual, and therefore have to cut back in other areas.

    The RNFC's relapse prevention men's and women's group is an example that partners many of the staff with their clients and clients' families. This is working, but it's always overworking the staff.

    The recommendation is that the agencies involved with aboriginal clients--social services, RCMP, child welfare, and the Department of Justice--be aware that this type of culturally sensitive programming is working, and be supportive of it and work with it. This could also be developed through the task force--for example, through training manuals and workshops.

    Many of the agencies I refer to within the community are not familiar with or do not recognize cultural protocols, and they work with many aboriginal clients. Again, this ties into recognizing the validity of a strong culturally based relapse prevention program.

    An aboriginal community council exists in our community. It is made up of many organizations. It recently had to send letters out to all the agencies in our community to remind them that if they are working with aboriginal clients, they need to know what is going on in the aboriginal community.

    We recommend that long-term funding be available specifically for capital projects such as healing and treatment centres in central Alberta, which would be based on the holistic approach to healing. The centres would include the cultural and spiritual aspects of healing, relapse prevention, detox, and support networks, and the funding would provide for this.

    This would also help with the transportation issues we face in getting clients to treatment and detox. There are no facilities in central Alberta. In our community alone, we have four reserves. In the Rocky Mountain area there are over 10,000 people, including Métis and first nations. As well, in other parts of central Alberta, there is Red Deer and Hobbema, which also has four reserves.

    Programs that are working are often funded as one-time projects only, and they could potentially operate full-time if newer and larger facilities were available and long-term funding was in place. Staff put in many hours to apply for funding that is not always received. Many of us scramble to secure dollars for projects we need to start or keep in operation, such as the funding from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which is no longer available.

    We have had some success with human resources in regard to transportation, but it's still a major issue. Staff often take their own time to drive clients because there just isn't the funding to get them there. It's always been an issue.

    The Rocky Native Friendship Centre has been in operation since 1975, starting out with six staff. We still operate out of the original building in which the program was founded. We have expanded to 24 staff and 30-plus programs, eight of which are provincially and federally funded, but within the last year we have outgrown our facilities due to the growing demand from central Alberta.

     Our fourth recommendation is that there would be improved government monitoring--this is where I'm talking about prescription drugs--of the amount of prescription drugs prescribed. There need to be more communication between doctors and counsellors, more guidelines in place, more research into it, and more funding to work on prevention and education strategies.

    The major addictions we see are either alcohol or alcohol and pharmaceuticals, mainly Tylenol 3s and morphine. I personally see over 50 clients who are on some type of prescription drugs, 20 of whom are on morphine, although the numbers for Rocky are probably closer to 70 for those who are on morphine. This includes the reserve population.

    I had one case last year of a client who took a case of prescription drugs with her to treatment, and one of the pillboxes contained over 400 pills of Tylenol. That's what she was getting from the doctor. It took over two pages just to list the medications she had on her. That's an extreme case, but it's rampant in Rocky, and communication is important.

    Our fifth recommendation is that more funding be available in all jurisdictions for work with adults with FAS. The funding for our FAS coordinator is over. We've applied twice for more funding. Only two projects were approved in Alberta this year. The barrier is that there's no funding for adults. There is funding for Aboriginal Head Start programs and for on-reserve aboriginal programs.

    I was at an AADAC round table discussion a few weeks ago, and a lot of that talk centred around the need in the treatment centres and also the fact that care for the caregiver should be included in any funding projects, provincially or federally, when we're dealing with front line workers. This could include extra funding for relief workers.

    Working with aboriginal people requires more contribution from the workers to build trust and the client-counsellor relationship. In order to accomplish this, many counsellors are available 24/7, and this can lead to what the worker labels as “compassion fatigue”. This was discussed quite at length at the round table discussion, because it's happening all across Alberta.

    I'll go into a bit about some of the major drugs used. The major illegal drugs used are cocaine, methamphetamines, and marijuana, but the number one out there is a prescription drug, morphine.

    Thank you.

·  (1335)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sanderson.

    I'll now turn to Doug Bellerose.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose (Executive Director, Métis Indian Town Alcohol Association): Hello.

    First of all, the acronym MITAA stands for Métis Indian Town Alcohol Association. We were established in 1975, so this is our 27th year. We do detoxification services. We have 12 beds in the residential unit. We have 12 mats in a shelter unit. We also do one-to-one counselling and referral to appropriate agencies throughout Alberta with whatever they need. We have 14 staff members. We have three outpatient offices, one in Valleyview and one in Peace River, and an adolescent office in High Prairie.

    We were the first detox centre north of Edmonton. We were established by the tri-colonies--the tri-settlements, they call them--the Peavine Métis settlement, the East Prairie Métis settlement, and the Gift Lake Métis settlement, along with the four bands that are around High Prairie and also with people in the town of High Prairie. They struck up a meeting and they looked at having a detoxification shelter within High Prairie to help the RCMP in regard to public intoxication, manpower in hospitals, and those kinds of things.

     So that's how we came about. And that's about it for now.

·  (1340)  

    The Chair: How many clients a year would you serve, then?

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: This year, at just the High Prairie office alone, it was 2,300.

    The Chair: I'm sure we're going to have lots of questions right after this.

    Mr. Benson.

    Mr. Allen Benson (Chief Executive Officer, Native Counselling Services of Alberta): Thank you very much for having me here today.

    I'm going to attempt to highlight some of the key issues related to a range of things. I represent an organization that provides province-wide services to justice and corrections provincially and federally, as well as child welfare support and family treatment programs. So although in some small instances we provide direct treatment programs for clients around substance abuse, we really address some of the issues of holistic development, such as the lady from Rocky Mountain House addressed.

    I have a short brief description of a prescription drug abuse survey that was done of our employees, which, along with a formal brief, I'll leave with you.

    I'd like to talk about some broader issues of substance abuse. First of all, I'll talk a little bit about the younger generation issues. The young population of today that we're dealing with is a changing population. They're different from what we're used to. They're different in corrections. When we have a young person in the federal correctional system under the age of 25, he has a different attitude than a traditional federal offender would, whether he's white or aboriginal. He comes from a point of view that he doesn't have to adhere to the rules of the system, he comes from a gang mentality, he comes from the mentality of a lack of respect of persons, family, elders. So whether they come from traditional cultures, whether it's Chinese, or North American Indian, or East Indian, if they're involved in gang-related activities, that level of respect isn't there. The respect for self isn't there, as well, which makes it even more difficult to address the issue of drug and substance abuse.

    So when we talk about treatment centres today, I have a great deal of respect for the treatment centres and the impact they've had on our communities over the years, in terms of how well they've done in changing the behaviours of our communities. We've seen many chiefs and leaders start to become sober, we have many organizations who have healthy employees, and we've seen more aboriginal people succeed in business and advance their education.

    So the treatment centres have done their job, but they're not going to continue to do that good job because they are now dealing with the changing generation. They need to change. In order for them to change, they need resources.

    Now, I don't run a treatment centre, so I'm not here to promote money for my programs, but the treatment centres need resources in a number of areas. They need resources in terms of looking at research. How do we re-evaluate what programs we have now? Let's look at best practices. What sort of collaboration do we have across Canada, including in the United States and North America, to address the issues of this young generation?

    There needs to be an allocation of resources for some collaborative research with these treatment centres, and in fact with the aboriginal community as it relates to aboriginal people. There needs to be dollars allocated to develop best practices, but also to develop a more appropriate outcome-based evaluation framework, as well, for our treatment centres, and in fact for all programs related to substance abuse. The evaluation frameworks typically are designed by program designers who don't really have the experience in developing. From a research perspective, I understand that, and certainly have changed that from our research point of view.

    So I think it's very important to find ways to partner better with the service delivery, and in the case of our aboriginal communities, it's important for them to partner with us to look at the issues of research and look at the issues of our responsibilities for delivering treatment services.

     How do we collaborate to develop a better evaluation framework, to look at a better, more effective way of addressing the outcome-based services we should be providing? That's important, especially with this young generation coming up.

    An interim project is being undertaken right now, a research project to look at the issues of the younger generation, cross-cultural issues. What is coming out of it is clear. Just in terms of the punk influence amongst the aboriginal youth alone, we have five different cultural groups within the punk group. That has a tremendous impact on our kids. The new-wave, new-age hip hop has three cultural groups within it, which has an even more dramatic effect on our kids, especially the kids who are coming into the larger urban centres like Edmonton and Calgary. That's another issue we need to look at and understand better. It's not just for aboriginal kids; it's a cross-cultural issue that has to be addressed.

    The youth population that's growing in our aboriginal communities is a concern for us. Certainly I'm aware it's a concern for Minister MacAulay and the Correctional Service of Canada, because the young population are skipping the provincial jail system, which traditionally would be the next step from young offenders, and moving directly into federally sentenced institutions. It's a serious concern for us. It comes directly from drug and substance abuse.

    That means this young population we have now, the growing young population, will increase their numbers by an estimated 38% in the federal system in the next five to ten years. That's a significant impact, all because of us not managing to address the issues of substance and drug abuse, which has a tremendous impact on that generation and their parents.

    There are programs like NNADAP, community-based programs that are very important to the communities. The problem is that NNADAP, in my opinion, has been stuck, if you will, for a number of years in that they haven't had increased resources to improve their services, to research their services, to develop the staff, to change the way they deliver services in addressing some of these generational issues as well.

    While I'm very supportive of the program, I'm also critical of the leadership of the communities in not being able to address the changing needs of their communities and the need for continued review and partnership with governments to address the issues of effective service delivery. The need to resource those programs is very important.

    A lot of credit has to go to the Correctional Service of Canada. I have had the opportunity, in the last six years since moving back from Australia, to become closely involved with the Correctional Service of Canada and to look at some of the impacts they've had on our communities. For example, it's because of the Correctional Service of Canada that the generation I'm from has become more involved in their healing path, more involved in cultural and spiritual teachings. As they become released from the correctional centres and they're on their healing path, they've been able to influence their families, their siblings, and have had a tremendous impact.

    A lot of people don't realize that. We have the research that's been done with Corrections Canada and the Nechi Training, Research and Health Promotions Institutethat supports the reintegration of aboriginal offenders.

    Corrections Canada has introduced and supported the use of elders and traditional teachings and ceremony within corrections, which has had that kind of impact. They have also supported the development of aboriginal-specific programs--for instance, the search for your warrior program, which deals with childhood and adolescent issues of violence. It changes behaviour and teaches skills to the individuals who have committed violent crimes. It teaches them skills to manage their anger.

·  (1345)  

     That has helped affect the addictions issues, because you're now dealing with the roots of the problem. Because of this, those programs are now starting to reach the communities. They were delivered in correctional programming; they're now starting to reach the communities and being delivered in the communities.

    So we have to give credit where credit is due. Their sexual abuse treatment program and their substance abuse treatment program have both had an impact on the aboriginal offender population.

    Minister MacAulay has taken the lead in championing, if you will, the issues of substance abuse within Corrections Canada. He has a research priority in that area. He is partnering with us and with many people, experts, from across Canada and North America to come to the table to design a new treatment model for Corrections Canada. In doing that, we're bringing a diverse group around the table to debate and argue the issues of treatment--what works and what doesn't work, and what we should try differently with this changing generation.

    The experts will be from this table as well as from across the country and the United States. It's an important step in addressing this. It's what has to happen. Put resources together, get the experts around the table to debate the issues, and look at developing the issues in a more strategic way.

    We can't separate the issues of substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, and the increased use of home-grown marijuana in our rural communities--the aboriginal kids in some of the rural communities are learning quite well how to grow and manufacture it--from the other issues in our community. So the issues of addiction are addictions issues. Whether it's gambling, alcohol, or sex addiction, it's an addiction, and it's because of some root cause. What we need to do is find better ways to address those root causes.

    Part of the problem is that there's a lot of pigeonholing with funding. We still haven't learned our lesson in Canada that we cannot continue to design programs to fit the funding criteria, and that continues to be an issue.

    Collaboration between federal departments and between federal and provincial governments is an important issue that has not been addressed. I think in the homeless file, if we look at that, we've certainly made inroads. I have to commend HRDC and Minister Claudette Bradshaw for the efforts in bringing the federal partners together to address the collaboration.

    But we haven't done that in other issues, and we certainly haven't done it in health of aboriginal people or substance abuse issues across the country. If we did that, I think we would do a better job and make better use of the dollars and resources that are available today.

    I think at some stage we need to find ways to bring the Corrections Canada people, the Health Canada people, and DIAND together with the AADACs of Alberta and the other provinces to work with the communities to better design programs that are more appropriate for that region or that community.

    Every community is different. You may have a community that has been impacted by the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church and the residential school issue, or you may have a community that is just poor. You have other communities with a strong economic base or a lot of oil and lumber influence. All of those things impact on the behaviour of the community, so the programs are different. The kinds of services required are different, and we need to be able to address those things when we're delivering services.

    In closing, what I would like to say is that we have across this country an opportunity to make some real inroads in how we address the future generation. What we haven't done well is bring the people together to talk about that and plan the strategies. We continue to accept the norm in how we address the issues.

    Prescription drugs are just one of those examples. We still don't have a computerized database that will monitor the use of prescription drugs by individuals so that we can, in fact, see if doctors are overprescribing. We still don't have the legislation in place to punish those doctors who are doing that or those individuals who are abusing the use of those prescriptions.

·  (1350)  

     We have many cases of abuse of very serious drugs--to mention a few, Percoset and Ritalin. The combination of cocktails of prescription drugs that are used by the young generation right now is amazing. We have many examples of four or five prescription drugs mixed with home-cleaning chemicals, and that's sold on the street right now in Edmonton.

    It's a very serious issue. People aren't aware of it because no one wants to really look at that issue, because it's not the same as the big drug busts that we deal with in the community; and the media doesn't pay attention to those issues because they're not as serious an issue in their mind. So we don't hear about those issues, but they are very serious ones.

    In Alberta, we are working to put together a committee to address the issues of prescription drug abuse. The premier's wife, Colleen Klein, is interested in moving this agenda. It certainly has pushed our organization to address it, and I think it's very important that we find ways to work together to address those issues.

    In closing, I'll submit a more detailed report on those issues, and for today, I'll leave you with the rough survey of prescription drug abuse.

    Thank you very much.

·  (1355)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Meier.

    Mr. Shawn Meier (Program Manager, Native Addictions Services Society): Thank you.

    I'm just sitting here, listening to a lot of the stories being told, and I just want to thank everybody here today. I want to let you know that I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. l'm glad to see we're on the same page. I notice that a lot of systemic issues are coming up, and I think that's why you're here today, to point out that this is a broader issue. How can we organize our system or our society in such a way that it's going to better assist those individuals who are having difficulty?

    I represent Native Addictions Services in Calgary, Alberta, and I'm the program manager. Some of the research and stuff I've done is actually to facilitate or better assist the individuals, as Mr. Benson pointed out. And he's right; a lot of program developers and managers out there really have very little education or very little understanding of what's going on.

    Just quickly, something I've been taught to do culturally is to introduce myself and my family a little bit. I'm actually a Sioux-Iroquois individual. My family comes all the way from Ontario. I have relatives in Sioux Valley in Manitoba, as well as in Enoch, which is just west of Edmonton here, I think. I haven't seen them for a long time.

    I have a BA and a BSW. I study comparative religions, as well as recently actually working on a thesis to compare western healing models with aboriginal healing models, specifically Jungian and Sioux.

    That's what we try to do at NAS. We try to look at cultural revitalization, looking at the phenomenological, existential approach to working with people, which really is just storytelling. We use narrative therapy, a lot of different things; I'll get to that in a few minutes.

    At any rate, Native Addiction Services provides an out-patient and in-patient service to our guests--I like to call them “guests”. I don't like to say “clients” or “out-patients”; here today I'll use those terms, but generally, those who come to our agency are our guests, or our visitors.

    Now we have two locations. One is downtown and one is on the east side of downtown. One is our residence and one is where we come and do all our programming. Soon, however, we're going to have a new building. Some of our funding researchers have put this together. I don't know how they did it. I'm really amazed. But we have a brand new building, and everything is going to be housed under one roof.

    I think our grand opening is October 4, and of course everybody here is welcome, and that includes all my friends here and everyone else in the room. If you can make it to Calgary, please come down, because we're very proud of our new building.

    Regarding our new building, this is again part of the cultural revitalization, but some of the research I've looked at from Dr. Clifford Pompana at the University of Alberta--he studies cultural revitalization in different aboriginal communities--is based on the 12-step program, and how the 12-step program assists individuals in becoming well. Or this is my interpretation of his research; it's very in-depth.

     To assist in that in terms of cultural revitalization, our new building has been specifically designed to promote aboriginal culture. So in the centre of our building we actually have a teepee. It's constructed of wood, so it's not your traditional teepee. It even has a heated floor. It's not the idea of living off the land; however, it's a strong symbol of our culture and where we've come from. This innovative design has attempted to incorporate aspects of first nations healing models as well as encourage and foster first nations spirituality.

    Our program is broken into two different components, one of which is our out-patient and community services. We do one-to-one counselling and crisis intervention. We have women's and men's aggression groups; gambling programs; youth and family programs; as well as cultural programs, where we teach storytelling, crafts, and music.

    The second component, our residential treatment program, currently has 20 beds, and we'll soon have 36 beds. That will include a very extensive after-care program. We're looking at one year to deal with some of the issues affecting our guests who come to stay with us.

    We've developed our therapeutic program based on the principles of the 12-step abstinence model. However, we try to let everybody who comes to our facility know we are not just another AA meeting. We understand the necessity of having a very simple program for the population we work with, but we also understand the very in-depth therapeutic process that goes along with it. I call the process the “phenomenological existential perspective”, which creates personal awareness through storytelling.

    NAS agrees with the tenet that most people operate in an unstated context of conventional thought that obscures or avoids acknowledging how the world is. This is especially true of one's relations in the world and one's choices. So again, as I said, it's phenomenological existential.

    Self-deception is the basis of unauthenticity, or living that is not based on the truth of one's self, again talking about Jungian concept of individuation or the concept of self-actualization, basically wholeness, or becoming the person we were meant to be. Through that self-deception, whether it be from a traumatic childhood, a horrible divorce, or just a maladjusted perception of the world around us, if it's not based on truth of one's self in the world, this leads to feelings of dread, guilt, and anxiety.

    How do we deal with dread, guilt and anxiety? Of course, we find different ways to do that. One is crisis-oriented thinking. We cause the body to react in a fight-or-flight manner, meaning that the body sort of begins to release various hormones and endorphins, which instinctively--and I guess from way back--cause us to feel less pain when we're being attacked. It's much like when you watch the wildlife channel. When you see an animal being attacked, they seem to have that blank stare. It's because the body has released these various endorphins and things that cause it to not really feel the pain.

    We have that same process; however, we're not attacked in the same way any longer. We create this artificial environment in which we cause the body to release these endorphins that cause us to feel good. It's called crisis-oriented. So at NAS we try to look at all these different things.

    By becoming aware of these various issues, one becomes able to choose and organize one's own existence in a meaningful manner. How do the 12 steps work as therapy? Very simply, we try to rewrite or rescript a person's history with them. When they were younger they may have felt vulnerable or helpless, and these things can carry on into adult life through our family relationships. Then we move it into our relationships, meaning we attract people who are like us.

    So by rescripting and looking again at these events, we point out where the person had power in that situation. We point out the ability to work through all these different traumas and events, these different situations that happened to us. That builds confidence and competence--or that's the way I like to look at it; we become responsible.

¸  (1400)  

     Just quickly, existentialism can be seen as man's attempt to be concerned with his existence, his situation in the world, and his freedom to choose his goals and projects and the meaning of his life.

    That's where we use the 12-step program. The first three principles are to create an understanding of spirituality. It could be Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zen--it's up to you. But that foundation gives some meaning to our existence.

    For example, if I have a higher power--which is what we call it at our agency--who cares for me and understands me, it gives me meaning and purpose in my life. So that is how we try to use existentialism in the 12-step program.

    Now, phenomenology is a discipline that helps people stand apart from their usual way of thinking so they can tell the difference between what is actually being perceived and felt in a current situation and what is residue from the past, meaning that when we're attacked or hurt, it is often the case that all of the times we've been attacked or hurt in the past come up. We move into a fight-or-flight response, into a depressive way of thinking, with all these different triggers.

    So that's the existential phenomenological perspective. We try to point out that everybody has a purpose and meaning, and the way in which you interpret your environment, the value judgment you place on your feelings versus how you interpret emotions, assists you in becoming healthy. Again, that's what we try to do at NAS.

    How am I doing for time? I'm sorry, I can talk forever. You have to forgive me. I just want to make sure I'm on track here.

¸  (1405)  

    The Chair: You are just over eight minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Okay. I'll wrap it up very quickly.

    By talking and writing, the individual attempts to address past issues and begins to clarify their roles, responsibilities, and purpose. That's it. Every single one of us here has decided upon whatever path it is we're going to take that's going to assist us in giving meaning and purpose to our lives. We all have families. We all have people who care about us. We all have places to go from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., or whatever hours you work; some of us work a lot more than that. That is what gives us purpose.

    The Chair: I was just wondering where you can get those 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. hours.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Oh, right, for some of us it's a lot longer. Yes, I appreciate that. I know sometimes I've been at NAS 18 to 20 hours in a day.

    Just to summarize, children who have been abandoned, neglected, or abused internalize the abuse. They grow up thinking there's something wrong with them. If you use the Christian perspective, sometimes they think they're sinful, bad, or evil because these things happen to them. It has nothing to do with the universe or the world. It's that they brought it on themselves. They feel it was their fault and they can act out self-defeating, self-destructive behaviours throughout their adult lives.

    Utilizing the 12 steps, a rewriting or rescripting of past events occurs, and through this simple program a person is able to release anxiety, guilt, and shame attached to old events. We look at cathexis or catharsis. Cathexis is the psychic energy we attach to events that become symbols in our lives, using again a Jungian interpretation. We've created these symbols that we attach psychic energy to, and then through this process we release that energy, which again is a catharsis.

    In short, the individual becomes aware of three pertinent concepts. One is how choices in the present are influenced from our past, how we're directed. A second is their responsibility and the responsibility of those involved--for example, codependency, learned helplessness, and emotional incest. Third, through healthy choices, all people have the ability and capacity to grow, to transcend or rise above whatever situation they feel they're in.

    It was put to me very, very simply: It doesn't matter what happens to you; it's how you take it.

    I think a very good example is from the Second World War, when had a lot of people who were in Nazi prison camps. When I watch them on TV, I think to myself, “They're the healthiest people I've ever met.” It doesn't matter what happens to you; it's how you take it.

    Look at Viktor Frankl, for example. He developed logotherapy actually out of a Nazi prison camp. He's a very good example.

    Through journaling, attending AA meetings, talking with therapists, family, and peers, the individual's cathexis or psychic energy attached to key life events becomes reduced--again, catharsis. Through this therapeutic process the individual becomes aware of the choices that amplify or reduce guilt and shame versus confidence and competence. Again, we have choices.

    I'll end there. As I said, I can go on for a lot longer. Thank you very much for having me here today.

    The Chair: Thank you, and thanks to each of you for your presentations so far. It's very interesting.

    Mr. LeBlanc, do you have some questions for us?

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) Yes, thank you, Paddy.

    Let me repeat what Paddy said, that you've made interesting presentations about topics that in some cases we don't hear a lot about, or a dimension that we don't often focus on. So thank you, and thank you for the work you're doing in the community. When Paddy concludes, she'll thank you for the work you're doing in the community, but I'll pre-empt her by telling you now how impressed I am with all you're doing with a very difficult social issue.

    I was interested when Ellen talked about prescription medication, and the abuse of prescription drugs. When we were in Atlantic Canada some weeks ago--I'm from New Brunswick--I was struck by the extent to which the abuse of prescription medication, and over-the-counter medication in some cases, has really taken off in many communities.

    Mr. Benson, you talked a little about some things the national government could do--for example, some kind of database, where you could catch people who are doctor-shopping, or pharmacists who don't realize that at Shoppers Drug Mart and down the street at the Jean Coutu and somewhere else, people were constantly filling the same prescriptions. That's information technology that would perhaps be very beneficial, if we could build in the security people expect from something like that.

    What other specific things do you think the national government could do to try to address the abuse of prescription medications? I have a sense that in some small rural communities the abuse of prescription medication is much more pronounced than perhaps of cocaine or other substances. Is that impression correct? All of you must have some views on what the federal government could do to try to attack this problem.

¸  (1410)  

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: I had mentioned more guidelines. For instance, I was at a round table discussion with AADAC, and one of the members there was an RCMP. They don't have any guidelines. There are a lot of people with illegal possession of prescription drugs and morphine they're selling on the streets. We see a lot more of that, but there are no guidelines for them to follow.

    The Chair: Just on that point, right now it is, in a sense, on the books. To go to Dr. A and then within 30 days to go to Dr. B, and not tell them you had just gotten a prescription for Percocet or dilotid or any narcotic, is actually against the law right now, but it's not enforced.

    So the RCMP officers do have guidelines; there is a law that would back them up.

    Mr. Allen Benson: We have had some convictions in Alberta within the last couple of years of prescription drug abuse trafficking, and I may be wrong, Ellen, but what I understood was there are a couple of things: there's a lack of training with police officers, and there's a lack of understanding within the medical community of the importance of policing this as well.

    There are some doctors who have said to me, “We're not going to touch this issue; no, we're not coming to your meetings to discuss this issue, because we're not going to be challenging other doctors. The issue of prosecuting doctors is a very serious issue, and it's not something we want to be part of discussing.” But that is a solution.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: By prosecuting, do you mean criminal prosecutions, or the medical society disciplining their own members, or both?

    Mr. Allen Benson: Both. There have been discussions about both of them at the committee we're putting together. The medical practitioners will be there to represent the association, but I know they're nervously addressing this issue.

    Health Canada has done research, and I can't remember his name, but in their research they've identified this as one of the biggest problems.

    There's nothing there that doctors really have to worry about. First of all, the disciplinary action that takes place within the medical community, from what I understand, isn't severe enough, so there needs to be some form of threat.

     There's an underlying issue. My daughter and her friends--so this is coming from a younger generation--say there isn't enough understanding. You can go to a drugstore and get an over-the-counter drug and not know all of the effects, or you could be prescribed something and the doctor isn't obligated to explain it to you. Even the pharmacist isn't obligated to do that. She's saying that perhaps one of the things we should be forced to do is get more information about anything that's prescribed to us so that we understand its effects. It's part of the education. She says, yes, young people like to party and use drugs, that's real, Dad, but the underlying issue is that when we become aware of the effects, at least the group I'm familiar with, I think that has an impact on us because we're still health conscious. Of all things, we're still conscious of that. It might not be across the board. This issue also comes from the clients we deal with. So that's one issue, more information.

    We talk about prevention of substance abuse with them, and their attitude is that none of this stuff works. These campaigns don't work. If you want to do a campaign, get us to do it. I think part of our problem is that our thinking is still that we know what's best for the kids today, for our clients, and for our community. But we don't actually ask them what is best for them. So I think there are a number of issues we need to look at.

¸  (1415)  

    The Chair: Mr. Meier or Mr. Bellerose.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: We think about things too much, and by the time things get done, it's too late. In Canada it's based on theory. They do a bunch of research. They talk good and look good, and by the time they do anything, somebody's dead. I think people have to look at doing things now, such as legislation.

    Look at what happens in the courts. People go to jail, and for the last 30 days they can go to treatment. Maybe they should do that before they go to court and get their sentence and do their time, not afterwards. I won't take anybody who has been through jail and wants to come out for the 30 days. I'll say, no, finish your time, then come out and see me. I've been there before, and I know what it's like. I've been in jail. I've done a lot of bad things.

    But everything takes too long. By the time people do things, it's too late. We think about a lot of things. We meet and meet and meet, and 10 years later you have a politician who buys into it, and just when he's getting into it, he goes somewhere else or delegates it to some other authority or whatever, and somebody else takes it up. It's just like gaining weight and having fat rolling around. It's too late by the time it's dealt with.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I think there's a lot of motion but no movement.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: Yes. But everybody thinks about it.

    People talk about partnerships. People say, I'll go do this and we'll meet with you guys and we'll do that, and it never really happens.

    The Chair: I didn't mean to cut you off, but I think I did so by accident. You can add something, if you wish, and I think Mr. Meier also wants to speak.

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: I was just going to comment that when we were talking about prescription drug abuse, such as morphine, I asked AADAC who is accountable for it. Many times clients bring us contracts that they signed with the doctor, and they're always broken. So I asked them, what happens when those contracts are broken? We continue to see them even though they relapse, because that's part of addiction. But the doctors are continually prescribing those drugs even though they've been broken. So I asked AADAC, do these doctors report to the medical association or to you? Who are they accountable to? That was one of the questions I asked.

    The Chair: Did they have an answer?

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: No. I can do my part and say to this doctor that, yes, this guy has definitely broken his contract, is doing coke, and is doing stuff he's not supposed to be doing. But we continue to work with them because that's part of the contract; they have to continue to seek counselling while they're taking their prescribed drugs.

¸  (1420)  

    The Chair: Shawn.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: I just want to be clear. The question was, what could the federal government do to reduce the use of medical drugs? Was that the question?

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Yes. What could the government do to address what we're learning is a rather rampant abuse of prescription medication?

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Again, I'm listening to everything that's being said, and I see it as being a systemic issue. That's why you're here today. How can legislation address this? Ultimately, we don't have the power to influence individuals; however, we do have the power to influence the greater population.

    When I think about it in relation to some of the things I've looked at, I think that from an aboriginal perspective we have very different cultural values. My understanding is that as an aboriginal person I have an obligation, a responsibility, to point out to people when they're acting inappropriately. That's how we learn. That's how we grow. If nobody comments on your behaviour, then of course you're not aware of it and you may continue to do it.

    Under the western model, we have an individual right to use and abuse ourselves. Nobody can stop us. Nobody has the right to comment on it unless of course it endangers others, because we have that very individualistic thinking.

    When I look at it, I think to myself, “How could legislation in an individualistic society positively influence what the individual is at the grassroots level?” The first thing I think of is that I agree with some of my colleagues here that, yes, we do need to have tougher legislation. We also have to take a psychoeducational perspective, meaning that we need to educate not just the RCMP but our children as well. I think we do that at very great cost to the government as well as at a very in-depth level; we do educate.

    It's out there if you know where to look for it. I can see you're right, and that's why I said, it's out there if you know where to look for it. Working in addictions, I see it everywhere. I see it in the bathrooms, where they have those little posters. I see it stapled to telephone poles, different pamphlets on where you can go. We have a lot of people here who offer services all over the province.

    Unfortunately, if we grow up in a family that doesn't acknowledge abuse or addiction, then we don't see it. We see it as part of our normal, everyday functioning. That's where it needs to become ingrained in our counselling services at whatever level we're at.

    If funding or money could be put in, we could have individuals who specifically address these issues. When we have somebody come in for some sort of offence that's not drug-related, are we giving them the tools they need to deal with what's going on in their own personal lives so they become more aware and so their children become aware? I see it as a very different approach.

    If we could apply a more holistic understanding, meaning that it is our responsibility as a community to address the behaviour of our individuals, not in a punitive fashion but in an empowering way, how would we do that?

    As I said, what it boils down to for me is that we need more education. I wish I had a better answer than that, but I don't. I really believe that it will take a group effort, not an individual one. At Native Counselling Services they deal with people who come from various backgrounds, as we all do. They have the opportunity to address this issue immediately when somebody walks in their door, just as we do. Again, as I said, it's just education.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Can I ask a follow-up on that?

    Just before you answer on that point, though, one of the things that was viewed as a facilitator for getting a lot of prescription drugs was the aboriginal health program. Prescription drugs are free to status Indians, and that creates a problem because there is no barrier in cost. You can have 90 pills sometimes, so you take them and you sell them. And for an addict, that's a real problem.

     There seems to be perhaps less caring amongst some of the physicians. We have heard of initiatives--and I'm not sure, Ms. Anderson, if you know about any, or maybe it happens in Rocky Mountain House--where communities are saying, no, patient X has 400 pills of Tylenol 3, so we're not going to that doctor; we know that doctor has a problem. And they're already taking some community action against certain doctors to try to break the cycle.

    One person in Atlantic Canada was talking about an aboriginal person getting three different prescriptions for 90 pills, all of them narcotics with double repeats, at a walk-in clinic. That was a bit of a shock. If it wasn't technically criminal behaviour on the part of the doctor, if it occurred exactly as they told us, certainly it seems they were facilitating the problem.

    They identified, however, that stopping the problem could create other consequences, where someone who was genuinely in pain and in need of some assistance wasn't going to get the drugs they needed. And within that aboriginal health program some of the stuff that people do want isn't available, and some of the stuff that probably they don't need to the same extent is just shoved at people.

    Is that something you're experiencing, or do you have any more in-depth analysis of that?

¸  (1425)  

    Mr. Allen Benson: That is an issue. It's also an issue in the homeless community here in Edmonton for those people who are on social assistance, where their drugs would be paid for. That's monitored a little differently. Typically a social worker would monitor that. In the case of medical services it's not monitored as well, or at least it hasn't been.

    I don't know what the answer there is. We have had discussions with some of the pharmaceutical companies who think that the issue of educating doctors is very important and that there isn't enough work done with doctors to educate them about the issues of prescription drug abuse. That may be one of the things that could happen in Canada.

    For example, there could be some more formal discussions between Health Canada and the pharmaceutical companies to look at providing more information, working with the medical association to address the issue of educating doctors.

    I don't know what the licensing requirements of doctors are. Do they have to take courses to upgrade their education? Surgeons do, but do general practitioners? If not, maybe we should make it a condition of their licence that every year, or every second year, they need to get training in the areas of Canada's priorities. One of those priorities seems to be the issue of prescription drug abuse.

    Perhaps we need to look at targeting the people who make the choices, the client and the doctor. If we educated the doctor, or educated the client, then perhaps we could do some intervention work there. Then it would be up to the rest of us to work with the community programs to do the kind of intervention work we've been talking about.

    But mainly there need to be conditions on pharmaceutical companies to provide better information and conditions on doctors with their licensing.

    The Chair: They're licensed in this province by the Province of Alberta and there are two medical schools.

    Mr. Allen Benson: Yes.

    The Chair: We heard earlier in another panel that they may get a couple of hours of education in that whole four- or five-year program. That's something you could start right in this province really fast, I would hope.

    Mr. Allen Benson: We are putting that on the agenda. However, I also think it could be part of the federal-provincial discussions on funding for medicare.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: I think the other thing, too, is that it's all too easy. Everything's becoming too easy for people to access. I have a buddy who drives a cab for medical services. At around bingo time, let's say 5 o'clock, somebody will make a 4:30 appointment to see a doctor so that they can do two things--first, get some prescription drugs, and second, sell them to a bingo player at the bingo hall. That's what they do in our country.

    They have so many different people who are driving cabs. They have so many different people seeing doctors. They have evening clinics so that people can do those kinds of things. I can go and say I'm somebody else and not produce ID, not produce any card, or anything that says I'm this person, and get the prescription under somebody's name.

     Everything's too easy. I believe they should revisit who and how they access services--medical, therapeutic, or whatever kinds of services they need. It's like insurance, where you have to get three opinions. Who does the damage to your vehicle? You know, you get three opinions from doctors that say this person needs these prescriptions for a reason. It's not one doctor who says, “Here you go.”

    Our High Prairie doctor is the one family physician for the year, but he's one of the leading men who prescribes all the prescription drugs. I thought maybe I could somehow make a name for myself by being a director for the year. It doesn't make sense. Everybody's getting away with everything. Everything's too easy.

    Then you have the Bill C-31s. These are people who are kids or children of treaty status or people who have lost their treaty status through marriage years ago. Now they can only access through Bill C-31.

¸  (1430)  

    The Chair: So they are called Bill C-31s?

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: Yes.

    I think everybody creates their own problems, and now the problem is there and here we are talking about how we resolve these things or how we look at these things.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Sanderson.

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: I just want to comment on what Mr. Benson said about educating the clients and the doctors.

    I know our clients are educated on prescription drugs and how they affect them. I had a comment from one of my clients the other day. I had mentioned Tylenol 3s. I'd say about 50% of my clients have hepatitis C, and about the same number are on Tylenol 3s, which every counsellor knows is not recommended when you have hepatitis C because it goes to your liver. This comment was from one of my clients. She said, “Do you think I should sue that doctor? He's obviously given me something that isn't good for me.” So they know more.

    We tell them, and we try to get them off the drugs, but a lot of the hepatitis C clients are in pain and they need stuff for it.

    The Chair: Some of the people we met in Eaglesnest told us they were quite educated about how to fake the symptoms, so they were very skilled at getting what they needed. But that's part of an addictive personality sometimes, I guess.

    Mr. Meier.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: I was thinking about what Mr. Benson had said in terms of psychosocial interventions, educating the client and the doctor, looking at people within their environment and what triggered them or caused them to have an addictive personality, to use your word. Generally, that's what we deal with. We deal with the individual, not with the system. Today, of course, we're trying to look at the system.

    What I've been thinking while sitting here is that through government, through legislation.... The way I generally see legislation is that it's directive and it's punitive. It's directive in the sense that these are the things we need to do to assist the individual. It's punitive in that if you don't do it, there could be some disciplinary measures.

    One of the things I was thinking, in terms of research or funding and looking at some of the pharmaceutical organizations, was what about more research for funding directed toward natural versus artificial or chemical, man-made, created drugs? For example, I was looking at a book the other day--I wish I had brought it with me--and they were saying there was this one particular natural herb or natural plant that had been proven, in clinical studies, to have the same effect as Prozac.

    The Chair: It's St. John's wort.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Well, St. John's wort is actually a much lower level. Yes, St. John's wort does deal with depression. In clinical studies, this one actually was equal to Prozac. St. John's wort is usually a mild anti-depressant.

     So what I'm looking at....

    Sorry, go ahead.

¸  (1435)  

    The Chair: I was going to say, on that front, one of the challenges with some of the naturopathic-type items is there are even fewer controls about who has access to them. There are some people who are advocating for a much stricter regime. I don't go in and pick out whatever I want without a lot of information, because it can still have effects on my liver and on my functioning. It depends on the quantity, as to whether it's a narcotic.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Right. And I agree with that. That's part of the second part of my explanation.

    Through government regulation, the pharmaceutical companies have much stricter regulations. I know it's very difficult as it is now, at least in my opinion, to pass some of the new drugs that are coming onto the market. But I think it should be even more difficult. I think if we can offer some alternatives, then what we're doing is opening up a lot of doors, as well as reducing the drugs that get onto the street. I think when you're looking at Ts and Rs, and all of these other things that are used to combat various psychological or physiological issues, they create a lot of problems. That's why we're here today, obviously.

    That's just a suggestion in terms of legislation.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Remember, it doesn't always have to be legislation. We do lots of programming and we bring lots of moral encouragement to provinces to do different programs--

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Are we looking at funding as well?

    The Chair: Sure.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Are we looking at programs, things like that?

    The Chair: Sure. Everything's open for consideration right now.

    Mr. LeBlanc.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

    There's one other issue on the prescription medication abuse theme--and this could be your own personal intuition or from having spoken to clients or guests of your centres. I'm wondering if there's not a tendency...and it ties into the legality differences. If somebody's found with a prescription for Tylenol 3 in their shaving kit, they're not going to be arrested. But if you're found with heroin or cocaine in your briefcase, you're in a lot worse shape than if you have some prescription medication. If there's a little sticker on it with the name of a doctor and a pharmacy, it may be less threatening for somebody to...

    I'm wondering if there's a stigma attached to something that's illegal versus something you can get from a pharmacy and a doctor. Doctors are supposed to be there to improve your health and look after you, take care of you, not to lead you to some addiction.

    That ties into the second question about decriminalizing marijuana. Some people are saying Parliament should look at decriminalizing. There's a difference between decriminalizing and legalizing--removing the criminal sanction of possession of marijuana, not trafficking, not maybe some great grow operation somewhere, but simple possession. If it were decriminalized, would that lead some people to assume some of the same acceptance that they might by having Tylenol 3 in their shaving kit?

    The Chair: Mr. Benson.

    Mr. Allen Benson: We have been paying attention to the issue and the debate around the decriminalization of marijuana for a whole bunch of reasons. I'll start off with the fact that because we deal with so many issues around justice, we have had extensive discussions within the organization--and we have 200 employees around the province who serve the communities. We've also had discussions with many organizations around the issue, and now the discussions are taking place with the young population.

    It's our opinion that decriminalizing marijuana is going to do a couple of things that are positive for the community. One is that there would be more use of marijuana--and this is not necessarily a bad thing--by those individuals who are mixing their cocktails right now. This is the young people saying it: “We mix the cocktails because they're legal.” They use the chemicals in the prescriptions. This is in the larger urban centres, and we hear this in Vancouver as well.

     Marijuana is considered illegal. They can't do anything to people for having a prescription drug in their our purse or wallet. It's a capsule. Unless they take the capsule and send it to a lab, which they're not going to waste their time doing, they can't charge anyone with manufacturing a drug.

    So the new heat, or the new heat rush, is now these drugs, and the young people are saying that smoking marijuana has less impact on them than the alcohol or the cocktails they're buying and using right now anyway.

    When you listen to that argument, from our perspective we see it. Now, from a treatment perspective, I think, there are a whole bunch of other arguments as to why you shouldn't do it. We don't have that opinion because we're not in the treatment business. So we have been arguing...or around the table have agreed that the issue of decriminalizing marijuana would probably be a positive step for the community.

¸  (1440)  

    The Chair: Ms. Sanderson.

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: When that issue first came up, I had a few clients come up right away and ask, “Who do I go to see to get a prescription for this drug?” I'd say, “You have to see the doctor; it doesn't come through the counsellor, if and when they do decriminalize it.” But it was a very small number compared with what I thought it would be. Some of the clients I do see, some who do have cancer and a few who have hepatitis C and other illnesses, mostly pain and stomach disorders, do smoke marijuana, and I would say that it's a benefit.

    On the other hand, I would say I'd rather see them smoke a little bit to alleviate the pain rather than see them go to drugs or alcohol.

    The Chair: You're talking about the medical use of marijuana.

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Meier.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: As to the decriminalization of marijuana, I think there are very few people who would benefit from it, but I do agree that there are some people who would benefit from the decriminalization of marijuana in terms of medical use.

    However, I think it would be--

    The Chair: There's some confusion around this. It's been one of the challenges as we talk to people. Apparently young people have a lot of confusion as well.

    Legalizing would be one thing. Basically, anyone could have access, as with alcohol, maybe under certain conditions and maybe not 18-year-olds. Decriminalizing means that it's still illegal if you have a large quantity, but if you have a small amount, a couple of joints, you're not going to have any sanctions. You're not going to get a fine and you're not going to have a criminal charge.

    The medical use of marijuana is something that is a third category, and that's something that's already under way. There are people who can get a prescription from a doctor, and they can possess marijuana because they are ill. There will eventually even be some distribution by the government of marijuana, and that's under way. That's the grow operation up in Flin Flon.

    So decriminalizing marijuana does not refer to the medical use of marijuana.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Thank you; then I'll redirect myself from where I was heading.

    I know that I'm disagreeing with some of my panel members here, but I think that decriminalizing is just going to encourage use. Now, I'm not talking about short-term use, I'm talking long-term use. There are many studies that say it's not addictive. Some say it is addictive, but I don't think it can be argued that long-term use does cause various health issues. It can cause throat and lung cancer, which have increased as compared with cigarette smoking, and as well it causes various forms of brain damage, short-term memory loss and things like that.

     When looking at marijuana, one of the things I found is that when dealing with people who have been chronic users for quite some time, generally speaking... This is how I understand physiology to work. We have neural networking in our brain. It's not a single path. It's many electrical impulses that work at the same time and they criss-cross. With marijuana use we destroy those neural networks. We destroy those neural paths.

    By doing that, we're rerouting information through different pathways, causing us to have these wonderful insights. Many of the long-term, chronic pot users or marijuana smokers that I know are geniuses, every single one of them. They have these wonderful insights. And it's been very difficult to deal with them. Of course, because they're geniuses, they can rationalize or justify their marijuana use.

    So in terms of decriminalizing, whether it's one or two joints for personal use, who's to say where they get it, where they buy it, and how much they can have? If they have two joints on them at a time, does that mean they can smoke two joints and then move around the corner and buy another two? I mean, how does that limit use?

    So that's my concern, that decriminalizing is actually going to increase availability and increase use. As the program manager for Native Addictions Services, that's not something I want to see. I don't want people coming to my office because they're having difficulty with their everyday life. And they come to see us because marijuana's a drug. As I said, whether it's addictive or not I think can be argued; however, long-term use does cause brain damage. It does cause a lot of difficulties.

    So I would disagree with decriminalizing it.

¸  (1445)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellerose.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: I think whether or not you decriminalize anything, people are still going to do it. People are still going to pack it. People are still going to buy it no matter what. To me, it has to do a lot with people's preference, and experimental use, and those kinds of things. People will try this for a while, and then move on to another group of friends and try this or that.

    Prescription drugs and all these young people doing their things, mixing drug cocktails and those kinds of things, it's just like sniffing. In my day, I couldn't afford alcohol so I was going to go sniff because it was free and there was more of it. I think these prescription drugs are just like that; you find a friend or you go and raid your mother or mother-in-law's cabinet.

    I think a lot of things have to do with two kinds of people here, those around the politics, or the legislation, and the people who utilize or misuse the drug. You can't really say it has anything to do with legislation; it has to do with the person who's using it, too. It has to do with our society. It has to deal with the leadership in our own community.

    I sit here and I think, “It's the doctors, it's the doctors.” It's not the doctors. If I were a doctor and somebody came to me and said, “I need help with this,” well, my role is that I'm supposed to help them. So it's not a specific person's fault, it's everybody's fault.

    I think when I got into this business...and you look at confidentiality, but in a small community there's no such a thing. They've come up with FOIP and a lot of different things, but everybody knows what goes on and who does what. In terms of legislation, it doesn't matter what you have in front of you or behind you, you're still going to do it.

    Education is key, prevention is key, and after-care. If you look at the continuum of service we provide, there are a lot of people who fit everywhere and anywhere, but I think instead of pointing fingers, we should realize that it's everybody's fault. It's not just certain people or certain groups, it's everybody.

    The Chair: Mr. Benson, you wanted back in?

    Mr. Allen Benson: In the days of prohibition...we'd have a lot of grandparents right now, and in some cases parents, who wouldn't be able to travel across the United States. In those days it was an offence but it wasn't a Criminal Code offence. I think that's the issue for us, from a justice perspective. We see the impact on the population. We see it in the courts with our court worker program. We see it in the community, even with our employees.

    I hired a researcher to do some international research for us, and I found out that person couldn't cross the border because of a marijuana charge when he was 19 years old. He's now 37. But according to American customs, it's still a criminal offence. And it was on his record.

     I guess the issue for me is, if it's illegal, it's illegal--fine them, then--but let's not make it a criminal offence. If that's the issue, if it's like possession of alcohol, then it's a possession of marijuana charge. You pay a $75 fine or a $150 fine. If you're a repeat offender and the judge decides to give you a harsher penalty, then that's the limitation you put on the courts. But criminalizing a soft drug--and that's how I see it--is a real concern, because it impacts on our community across the board.

    It's not about the young generation. It's about our generation, which has to deal with the use of it as well. Many of our generation, whether they're in politics or in a professional field--whatever field they're in--have somehow been impacted by the use of marijuana, or could have been impacted by an actual conviction. I know that's an issue. We deal with pardons a lot. Many pardon applications are going to the Solicitor General, and most of them have to do with the possession of marijuana.

    So I guess that's the issue. Research isn't conclusive, and that's part of the other problem. It's so diverse. The amount of research on the issue of marijuana use and its effects is just not conclusive. I don't even like to look at it from the standpoint of that argument. The impact on our society itself and the cost of the judicial system, the cost of policing--I think it's ridiculous.

¸  (1450)  

    The Chair: On that last point, in terms of generations, the new generation of marijuana is a hell of a lot stronger than the old generation of marijuana, and that affects some of the research as well; we don't know what we're talking about. The joint that 37-year-old had may have had 2% THC. For the kid on the street in Edmonton today, it could be anywhere up to 30% or 40% THC. So it's a lot stronger. It's not even an issue of whether it's soft or hard, it's a question of it being quite a bit different.

    So we don't have any strong opinion either way at this point. We're trying to figure it all out.

    Mr. Allen Benson: Yes, it's true. From my perspective the issue is if you compare it to the other drug use that's out there--if you compare it to the crack cocaine that's out there and all of those other things--one's illegal, and you make a difference... I think at some stage we have to call the shots and decide what's more important in terms of which drug is really the bigger issue and which isn't. If they're all an issue, then let's nail alcohol and tobacco; let's not be afraid to deal with the real issue. Alcohol is as dangerous to our society and more costly to our society than some of these illicit drugs. But we don't want to deal with that, because it's a big tax base. That's a real issue.

    The Chair: And some people say, we've been so unsuccessful with alcohol and cigarettes, why would we introduce another substance to the legal framework?

    Mr. Allen Benson: That's a good point, but if you're going to make one legal, or decriminalize one--possession of alcohol isn't a Criminal Code offence, because you can buy it in a store--then why aren't we looking at the issue of marijuana? Maybe we should look at the other drug issues.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Your point is a good one.

    Paddy, in your distinction between decriminalizing, legalizing, or medical use, in my view you could decriminalize marijuana but it would still be an illegal substance. In other words, you can remove the Criminal Code offence, the conviction, or criminal record and criminal sanction.

    Hunting a moose with a flashlight in New Brunswick is illegal; it's an offence. And in fact the fine and punishment are significantly greater than being caught with a small amount of cannabis. But you don't get a criminal record for jacking the moose. You get a criminal record for being caught with a small amount of cannabis. I think you could say, for example, that if you decriminalize marijuana it would remain a controlled substance, possession of which is an offence unless you have a medical exemption. Then you've dealt with the medical aspect of marijuana. In other words, it's an illegal substance but for your prescription from a doctor. You'd still be fined, as you would be if you had open booze in a car. You'd be fined for having open alcohol in a car, but you wouldn't get a criminal record.

    Mr. Allen Benson: There becomes a measurement of criminalization. So at a certain quantity, you're now in possession for other purposes, not just your own personal use. I think that's where you have to look at the issue, and that could be the same for other street drugs as well.

¸  (1455)  

    The Chair: And that is something we need to look at, too. Do we need to change the entire regime? Arguably, today we've determined that the prescription drug regime isn't working so well for a lot of people, but should we just turn the whole thing over to a different regime? Fine, you get a prescription for heroin, cocaine, or whatever you need, and there are various restrictions on who has access and under what conditions, and what have you.

    Part of the challenge is that we have laws on the books, as you point out, Mr. Bellerose, and yet everyone is doing it. And flaunting the law so openly creates its own set of problems.

    Some people we've heard from say that some young people are being confused about the whole area of the medical use of marijuana. Again, if it's supposed to be helpful for some people, then why is it illegal? I might as well try it myself, self-medicating.

    So there's a lot of confusion out there, and it's not necessarily making for a healthier population.

    I have Mr. Meier, and then we'll go back to the table.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Thank you.

    I was just listening to some of the arguments that have been presented here, and I can agree with the fact that, yes, we do need to refine and clarify our legislation around marijuana or other drugs. There's no doubt about it that there are many, many issues.

    Mr. Benson of course sees the legal issues every day, and I can agree with that. I think marijuana has caused a serious problem for our legal issues, to use his narrative of the gentleman who couldn't come and assist us up here in Canada because of his marijuana charge when he was 19 years old. However, looking at it in comparison with alcohol and tobacco, we can see from Native Addictions Services, from more the therapeutic side, that alcohol and tobacco are our major issue, but they're also legal, whereas marijuana, which is not a major issue, is currently illegal.

    To me, the argument in terms of decriminalization is a closer step to legalization. That's fine. I have no issue with that. However, as I said, with alcohol and tobacco, yes, we do need to put some restrictions on that, and we have. Take drinking and driving; you have to be in a safe place.

    We have the right as individuals in a western society to abuse ourselves if we choose to. Smoking hurts us, and alcohol hurts us, so why would we decriminalize marijuana? What is the purpose? Is it that we can reduce the number of people who are in our judicial system? Sure. However, with increased use, do we have an increased rate of crime, an increased rate of car accidents? Do we have an increased rate of various other things that would actually flood our system?

    Again, I agree that there is not enough research. I agree that there is not enough information out there to answer these questions.

    Does marijuana affect your motor skills? Sure, it does. Does it affect your ability to drive a vehicle? Yes, it does. By decriminalizing it, however, we don't have the laws in place. How do you test somebody who has been using marijuana and driving a vehicle? A blood test? It's complicated. There are many different things. Could we use a urine test? Sure. They're $65 apiece. So are we creating a larger problem by decriminalizing it, or are we reducing the problem within our judicial system?

    Again, working at NAS, I see it as increasing family issues, marital issues. Violence generally is reduced with marijuana because the person is lethargic, but what about family issues such as work, or family issues such as neglect of a child?

    So I think there's a lot to it. I'm creating a very large scenario rather than just an individualistic idea, but I'm trying to look at the broader, global picture of how the decriminalization of marijuana would affect the people I deal with every day.

    In terms of the judicial system, there are a lot of things. I agree with Mr. Benson very much that it probably would reduce a lot of the court time and costs there, but in the long term, is there a greater cost? So it's a very, very difficult question.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Sanderson.

¹  (1500)  

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: I'd like to share a comment I had from a Red Deer RCMP officer. He said they wouldn't arrest somebody for a joint because it's just too much paperwork, going to court and so on. Two or three hours to process one joint? They wouldn't even bother with it, at this time anyway.

    The Chair: Thank you. We've heard that, too.

    Again, you have a law on the books and it's not necessarily being used. These are difficult issues.

    Mr. Bellerose, you've now had a little more time to think about the decriminalization aspect.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: I just think it's hard, all the way around. You talk about having the act, the legislation, and all of this, but you have somebody who works for the RCMP, or whoever, and they don't follow it, so why should we? I mean, the perception is...and you think about everything--your kids, your politics, your community leaders and people who are in trusted places, and religion and all this stuff we went through within the last 10 years.

    We just had an election, and I asked my son the other day about our election and what he thought of the leaders who were elected. They were both his uncles. He said, “I don't care. It'll never change anything.” That's the perception. They don't care. They drink, they drive, they party. I just lost a brother-in-law and his wife to alcohol.

    So it's hard, and it's hard to continue to do these certain things when we're such little people in regard to legislation and the people who carry out the law.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Benson.

    Mr. Allen Benson: I would like to close with a couple of comments.

    I'm glad you mentioned the RCMP, because that was one of the comments I was going to make, on policing. We've had discussions with the city police in Calgary and Edmonton around this issue. We're aware that for many high school students who are busted by teachers, principals, or police officers in the schools, no charges are laid. There is an attitude within the police force that it's just too much work and it's not worth the time.

    Minister MacAulay made a comment that really holds true for us. We run a section 81 federal facility right in the inner city of Edmonton. Our residents and inmates can walk across the street and get drugs. I have 92 beds there. He said it's not the access to drugs that's an issue; it's the attitude of the client that needs to change. It's the attitude of our society that has to change.

    So access isn't the issue and decriminalization isn't the issue. Yes, it'll help us in our community, in this country, in dealing with the justice issues. The cost I think is significant. We have to change our attitude. We have to look at the broader issues and we do have to address some fundamental parenting issues.

    We have two parents working. We have single moms who are stuck with little money, trying to raise kids. They're forced to work because the welfare doesn't allow them to become independent. You either stay on welfare or you have to get out and work. There's nothing in between. It isn't graduated so that while you're on welfare you can work and earn some money. You could be helped to succeed for the next two years so you can actually build and survive.

    So kids are raised alone and that's part of the problem. Their parents are busy working. Two-parent families are busy working. We create the environment, and then we try to fix the problem by controlling society. We can't do that. We have to change the mentality, the thinking.

    We have to create opportunities for families to become families again. Those are broader issues we need to look at. It doesn't matter whether you're a middle-class or impoverished family, you're in the same situation. I know; I grew up in a large family in the north and I raised two teenagers. I know what it's like to be a single parent dealing with those issues. We really do have to look beyond substance abuse or drug issues. The attitude is what we have to change. And education's important.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there some great champions in the aboriginal community who are either setting fine examples or initiating programs? Are there some great things going on? There's definitely a national aboriginal focus on addictions week and things, but are there other specific programs or initiatives you wanted to tell us about, beyond of course the things you're doing?

    Mr. Meier.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: Actually, as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Clifford Pompana, who's at the University of Alberta, is currently completing a double PhD in philosophy of religion and psychological anthropology, which looks at addiction. He currently runs a program at the Red Road Healing Society in Edmonton here, where they look at early intervention.

    Their whole protocol is to look at family issues from the ground roots level, but dealing with the children, especially; to intervene at the early stages rather than the reactive stages; to be proactive versus reactive. Their program, I think, is a very healthy model. It's something I'm actually trying to utilize--some of their ideas--at Native Addiction Services in Calgary.

    That's someplace I see as being very well founded in research as well as in the practical applications and what they look like in an aboriginal community. It's Abbottsfield, a very poor community northeast of Edmonton, where they do their work.

¹  (1505)  

    The Chair: Is it part of the Aboriginal Head Start program?

    Mr. Shawn Meier: No, it's not.

    A voice: It's a community-based healing program.

    Mr. Shawn Meier: It's actually called the Red Road Healing Society. Again, his name is Dr. Clifford Pompana, who is the resident elder there.

    The Chair: Is there anything else, Ms. Sanderson, beyond your own program, of course?

    Ms. Ellen Sanderson: There are a couple. One I had mentioned was the Nechi program and Poundmaker's. This is what we would hope to get something similar to in Rocky Mountain House. The other one is Siksika family violence programming. They do a lot of the stuff based on what Mr. Benson was talking about. Some of the programs that come out of corrections were based on it. They give three-week healing programs throughout the year, and that is for men, women, and also youth.

    That's all based on holistic healing, too. That's one we are trying to get into Rocky as well.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellerose.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: For the settlements, yearly we have a Federation Cup. We have hockey for women's, men's, and old-timers' divisions. Every year we have that. We started co-ed slow-pitch last year, and we have that alternating from east to west. There are four settlements in the west and four in the east, so each takes a turn hosting it. We also have yearly teen conferences, and the same goes there, too; each settlement from the east and the west hosts it yearly. They also have elders' conferences, and they're working on family conferences with the CFSA region 18; that's the Métis settlements Child and Family Services Authority.

    Actually, I haven't been involved too much. Since I sobered up about 12 years ago, I have started taking a look at life. I learned a lot of things about the settlements and politics and what they have to offer, and I'm proud of Alberta in respect to the Métis and how much power and influence they have on their community, actually, and how much they can do. They have a lot of opportunity for the settlement members.

    The Chair: And you have a wonderful senator.

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: We have the MSGC--the Métis Settlements General Council. They run out of Edmonton here; they are a collective with all eight Métis settlements. There are five members per council; that makes the MSGC.

    The Chair: And that's changing the environment, having your own system of government or organization?

    Mr. Doug Bellerose: Yes. They've had it for a long time, but they offer quite a bit of stuff in respect to the settlements and to the settlement population.

     Over the years they've been advocating and doing certain things in and around healing and alcohol and drugs for youth. It's just beginning. This is their fourth year for the settlements in region 18.

    Through my job at the Métis Indian Town Alcohol Association, we had offered to and worked with AADAC in and around training and sponsoring counsellors from each of the settlements. There was one settlement where people who work in the office were saying they couldn't find anybody who qualified, because they had to have 12 months' abstinence. I said, “I don't think so. You're just not working hard enough.”

    When you look at the politics of the settlement, a lot of it has to do with nepotism, and nepotism has to do with big families. That's how people get elected.

    So as people come into politics, things change. People go out, new people come in, with new staff. Every three years, everything changes. Continuity in regard to people who are responsible or who have good leadership skills is hard to find. But they do have a lot of opportunity.

¹  (1510)  

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Benson.

    Mr. Allen Benson: Wayne Christian is a young man who used to be a chief of the Kelowna band. He developed some programs around the Round Lake Treatment Centre. He's now out of the treatment business and working more as a developer with organizations in British Columbia. I've read a lot about him, and I've heard a lot about him, and I just met him recently in P.E.I. at an international conference on substance abuse. He's a man worth talking to. He has a wealth of knowledge and experience around the issues of addictions from a community development perspective. He's very articulate, very understanding of the issues, and he has a political background from the community side to know the difference between the community's responsibility and the government's responsibility, which a lot of people forget, and an organization's responsibility. And I like that in him. He's a good person with lots of knowledge, and I'll make sure you get his address and information.

    Hollow Water in Manitoba has a program worth looking at. There is a cost-benefit analysis study that we were contracted to do by the Solicitor General's policy branch. The person there is Ed Buller.

    Hollow Water is a community that took traditional teachings and traditional methods of treatment and dealt with their incest and sexual abuse issues in the community, and it's had a tremendous impact on substance abuse and drug abuse. And if you've ever driven to Hollow Water, there's a sign, “Drug traffickers not allowed”. I mean, these people have taken control. They now have abusers working with them in counselling and treating the victims and the abusers in the community.

    There, only one person out of 111 has recommitted an offence. They have saved federal, provincial, and municipal government, I believe, up to $10 million or $15 million. I'm not sure of the figures, because I didn't do the research, but our organization did a cost-benefit analysis study. They're funded to a tune of $220,000 a year. It's a pittance, and they do a magnificent job of addressing addiction through holistic healing. They're an awesome community, and we've learned a lot from them.

    The search for your warrior program and the spirit of your warrior program, which you can get information from Corrections Canada on, deal with those very issues of childhood and adolescent behaviours and the impact of violence on them. So they address addictions in a different way by dealing with the root of the problem. But all of those programs are available through the corrections division, through Ed Buller's shop at the policy branch.

    But those are things that are working. Those are things that have been researched. Dr. Michael Bettman, through Corrections Canada, identified the in search of your warrior program as the best violence management program that affects behaviour change in Canada, and he's the guy who developed the mainstream violence program, for non-aboriginal peoples.

    So that says a lot about the impact of those kinds of programs. It's worth looking at those things, and it's definitely worth talking to people. You should talk to Ed Buller about Hollow Water and the impact of that program.

     It's also important to talk to a guy like Wayne Christian, who understands the issues of illicit drugs from Vancouver and has worked with the homeless there, but has worked at the community-based treatment programs and has worked in community development and is a former chief. He's a brilliant man.

    Thank you.

¹  (1515)  

    The Chair: That's great. Finding those champions and those great examples within the community is pretty important.

    Dominic already said thank you very much for preparing your presentations and coming to talk with us today. On behalf of all of the committee, the members who are here and those who are not, thank you for the work you do in your communities on behalf of the people you serve, and on behalf of all Canadians, because this is a challenge or problem for all of us. We wish you very much good luck with the initiatives you're undertaking, and continued good luck in some of your personal journeys as well.

    If you have other things or examples you want to send to us, our clerk, Carol Chafe, whom most of you met, or at least spoke to along the way, will be happy to get an e-mail or fax. She'll make sure that information is shared with all of the committee members in both official languages. We appreciate all input.

    Again, thank you very much.

     We are adjourned.