SNUD Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, August 27, 2002

1440

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

Mr. Gerry Harrington (Director, Public and Professional Affairs, Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada)

1445

The Chair

Mr. Robert White (Director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

1450

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Robert White

1455

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1500

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1505

The Chair

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

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1510

Mr. Robert White

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Robert White

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Robert White

Mr. Derek Lee

1515

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Robert White

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Robert White

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1520

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Robert White

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

1525

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Robert White

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Harrington

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Harrington

The Chair

1530

Mr. Gerry Harrington

The Chair

Mr. Robert White

The Chair

Mr. Robert White

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

1535

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1540

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Gerry Harrington

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Harrington

1545

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Harrington

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier (Director, International Crime Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1615

1620

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Terry Cormier

1625

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Terry Cormier

1630

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Mr. Terry Cormier

1635

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

1640

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

1645

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

1650

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

1655

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

1700

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

1705

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

1710

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Terry Cormier

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

1715

The Chair

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

NUMBER 053

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, August 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¸ (1440)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on May 17, we are the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. We've been considering the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs and the subject matter of a private member's bill, Bill C-344, to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act respecting marijuana.

We're very pleased to have with us this afternoon, from the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association, Gerry Harrington, who is the director of public and professional affairs, and Robert White, who is the director of scientific and regulatory affairs. Welcome.

I think you have come with a prepared presentation, and if we could spend about 10 minutes on that, we'll have an opportunity for questions and answers from the members of Parliament who are here. While not everybody is in attendance, everyone will have access to the transcript. Because it is unusual to have meetings in the summer, we don't have a full slate of attendees, but they're very interested in the subjects you will be discussing today.

Mr. Gerry Harrington (Director, Public and Professional Affairs, Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada): Thank you.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide some background on the issue of the non-medical use of non-prescription drugs. Our organization, NDMAC, is an industry association representing the manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs, herbal remedies, and other natural health products, as well as diagnostic kits used by people in the practice of self-care. It's a roughly $3 billion industry. It plays a critical role in the health care of Canadians and in maintaining a cost-effective health care system. Once again, we are pleased to be here to provide some background on OTCs and the issue of non-medicinal drug use.

The non-medicinal use of non-prescription drugs appears to be a relatively rare phenomenon. In preparation for this testimony, I conducted a number of literature searches in the hope of finding a relatively recent review article that could provide you with some sort of an overview of the extent of the problem. I'm afraid I was not successful. Perusal of the data available from websites such as the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse provided virtually no mention of the very term non-prescription drug and no meaningful statistics at all. Based on that and, collectively, about 40 years experience in the industry, we are left to conclude that this is a problem that is far from non-existent and on a much smaller scale than is the case with illicit substances and many other licit substances, such as prescription drugs, household solvents, and a variety of other common products. That said, there is nothing to suggest that the absence of literature on the problem is merely a matter of its recent development. In fact, though the literature we were able to find is very sparse and limited to case reports and the like, we were able to find citations going back as far as the 1940s. So it's not a new problem, it is a problem of some standing on a relatively low scale.

Notwithstanding the rarity of the problem, there are a good many measures in place, at both the federal and provincial levels, to deal with the potential abuse of non-prescription drugs. These begin first and foremost with the criteria Health Canada uses in deciding whether a drug can be made available without a prescription. One of those criteria states that if a drug possesses “a dependence or abuse potential that is likely to lead to harmful non-medical use”, that would constitute a reason for maintaining that drug on schedule F to the Food and Drugs Act, which is the instrument that requires a physician's prescription before it can be bought or sold.

Once the drug has been approved for non-prescription sale, there are a number of measures at the provincial level to ensure that the abuse potential is managed as closely as possible. The regulation of conditions of sale for non-prescription drugs is achieved through a cascading series of controls known as non-prescription drug scheduling. For all provinces except Quebec, an expert committee administered by the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, who I believe you heard from this morning, is the key decision-making body in that regard. In Quebec l'Office des professions has a committee with similar criteria and controls in place to perform a similar function.

Based on the abuse potential and other published criteria, non-prescription drugs may be available for sale through any retail outlet, limited to sale only under the supervision of a pharmacist, so-called schedule III, or sold only under the direct control of a pharmacist, schedule II, where they are kept behind the dispensary counter and there is no opportunity for consumer self-selection.

¸ (1445)

An example of how that whole complex of regulations works would be the non-prescription availability of codeine-containing drugs, codeine, of course, being an opiate analgesic and cough suppressant. At the federal level, in order to qualify for non-prescription status, codeine can only be sold in very low doses, 8 milligrams per unit dose, and must be combined with at least two other ingredients, a measure considered to reduce its abuse potential. Once that approval has taken place at the provincial level, all 10 jurisdictions--I should say 13, as all three territories do follow one or the other neighbouring province--require that codeine-containing preparations be sold in schedule II under direct pharmacist control and supervision. Pharmacists in that situation are under the professional obligation--and I believe you heard some testimony about that this morning--to ensure that usage is appropriate.

[Translation]

The province of Quebec also requires that patients' drug records be adjusted.

[English]

These controls, of course, aren't watertight. As we have mentioned previously, abuse does occur. The most commonly cited non-prescription drug case reports of abuse concern codeine, which I was referring to earlier, as well as the anti-nauseant dimenhydrinate, which is sold under the brand name Gravol among others, and the cough suppressant dextromethorphan, sold in a wide variety of products, usually having the suffix DM. Rarer reports have also been published concerning the misuse of the common antihistamine diphenhydramine, also sold under a number of brand names, including Benadryl, and the common decongestant pseudoephedrine. In the case of pseudoephedrine, the abuse is not so much recreational, as is the case with the other drugs I mentioned, but more often as a performance-enhancing agent. In fact, some of you may recall the incident with a notable Canadian rower in that regard. The vast majority of cases of abuse in the literature have not been accompanied by reports of long-term serious health consequences. They have been characterized by being isolated and of short duration.

As with any risk management exercise, it is important to note that these measures are the result, in part, of a risk-benefit analysis. Although there is limited abuse potential for a small number of non-prescription drugs, and that is acknowledged, their continued availability without a prescription is still considered good public policy. This is based on the ability of such products, and their availability, to reduce the demand for physician services and other publicly funded health care services. Thus, the potential benefits of any new control measures have to be weighed against the impact these types of controls may have on publicly funded health care services.

Finally, I would like to raise one issue before proceeding to questions and answers. That is the issue of the diversion of non-prescription drugs as precursors in the manufacture of illicit drugs. The most notable of these is the use of pseudoephedrine in the manufacture of methamphetamine. We have been working very closely with Health Canada and the RCMP in the development of regulations in Canada to control that diversion, essentially to meet our obligations under the 1988 UN conventions. It is our understanding that those regulations will be in place at the beginning of 2003. We are doing everything we can at our end to ensure that they are implemented at the manufacturing level as quickly as possible.

With that, I will end my comments. Thank you for your attention. We are available to answer any questions.

The Chair: Mr. White, did you wish to say anything?

Mr. Robert White (Director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada): I am here if there are any questions that come up that I might be able to answer, but I don't have a prepared statement at this time.

The Chair: Thank you both.

No doubt someone will call me, so to clarify, OTCs are over-the-counter drugs and NDMA is the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association. I caught that at the beginning, but I wasn't sure if it was interpreted easily.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I think the chair has thanked you for coming.

I think part of what I would call a comprehensive look at non-medical use of drugs has reached into medical use of drugs. Personally, I've been shocked by some of the things we have seen, not so much by the non-prescription drugs, but more perhaps the prescription drugs that are used in a non-medical way, more for euphoria than medical reasons.

I don't have a lot of questions for your group. We're seeing new drugs coming into Canada, drugs we never heard of years ago, little drugs with happy faces on them and kid ecstasy, drugs kids are using and playing with. This morning, in a comment to one of the witnesses, Mr. Randy White said we aere living in a time where we are all dependent on something. I don't know if you can grab a question out of this or address it, but my concern is with what makes up these synthetic drugs. You spoke about Gravol, Tylenol 2 and some of those things. Are some of these drugs used in other drugs? Ecstasy being a synthetic drug, who knows what all is in it. Is there a real concern that what makes up your drugs is available to everyone else, the diversion I think you talked about into some back yard garage.

¸ (1450)

Mr. Gerry Harrington: There are two separate issues, if I catch your meaning. The one issue would be that there have been instances, certainly documented instances, regarding something like dimenhydrinate where information is circulated particularly among minors. It's much more common with young children, who perhaps don't have as much access to typical illicit substances, that they can achieve some sort of recreational high by misusing non-prescription drugs. In this age, when we have a whole new element that wasn't there when we were kids, which is, of course, the Internet, that information spreads along with all sorts of other types of misinformation and perhaps can be a contributing factor.

In the case of something like dimenhydrinate, it's very interesting to see what the patterns are, because you typically find localized outbreaks of very short duration. In other words, in a particular local community you might have a number of reports in a short period of time, and then the problem tends to resolve itself fairly quickly. One of the principal reasons for that is simply that the regulators, I think, have been quite effective in identifying that most non-prescription drugs don't in fact have a strong pharmacological basis for drugs of abuse, in other words, they don't produce a particularly pleasant experience for the user. Nonetheless, children who are inclined to experimentation will perhaps give it a try. There's no question that some of these drugs, if taken in sufficient quantity, can produce hallucinations, there's no question that there are psychotropic affects, but the abuse does not seem to become long-term, simply because it is not a particularly pleasant experience. The margin between the dose at which these kinds of affects are produced and the dose at which unpleasant consequences come about is pretty thin. Pharmacologically, they just aren't what you would call ideal drugs of a abuse. They don't work for the user. That's one issue.

The second issue, which I think is more appropriate and I'll leave to my colleague, is the whole issue of the use of the ingredients in non-prescription drugs in the manufacture of illicit drugs such as speed.

Mr. Robert White: The only ingredient in non-prescription drugs that can be made into illicit drugs, such as methamphetamine, is pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine is a nasal decongestant. It's in many cough-cold brand name products, such as Sudafed. When that product is bought, it can, through a chemical synthesis, be changed into another form, into a methamphetamine tablet. Most of the time this is actually by organized crime groups, because there are very large profits associated with doing the chemical synthesis.

If someone wanted to do these chemical syntheses themselves, they are not that complicated. Some danger is involved, because there are some solvents that can lead to a number of different problems the household with damage, as well as where you might be disposing of the chemicals after they have been used in the environment.

As I said, it's an organized crime type of thing. It's not the type of thing with which you will see most people or young kids experimenting. When you were talking about ecstasy and some of the other recreational drugs that might be out there now, they actually are made through chemical synthesis using a variety of different chemicals, but they are not in non-prescription drugs. Even the ingredient that's found in an non-prescription drug on its own cannot be changed into methamphetamine; you need other chemicals to make that chemical change.

¸ (1455)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I have a few questions to put in French, if you would allow me.

First, I gather that we are likely to find as many companies belonging to your association that produce generic drugs as ones that manufacture brand name drugs. I think no one disputes that fact.

Please review for our benefit the concrete details of the regulatory framework for drug approval. I have paid close attention to this issue. Besides, I am working on some proposals which I intend to submit to the Standing Committee on Health regarding drug costs. Of course this is another issue that does not concern this committee.

However, regarding Health Canada's regulatory framework, even over-the-counter drugs must be approved. Briefly please, refresh our memories and tell us who is in charge of this area and what this means.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: The regulation of non-prescription drugs at the federal level is very similar to the regulation of prescription drugs. It is a similar system of controls and review based on data packages submitted by the individual manufacturers. In the case of non-prescription drugs in particular, our area of expertise, there is very little in the way of distinction between patented or brand name drugs and generic drugs, because there are very few patented non-prescription ingredients available. Virtually all non-prescription drugs are, in that sense, generic. The regulatory requirements tend to be lower, because these are not typically new drugs, they are drugs that have already been evaluated by Health Canada, very often when they were originally prescription drugs, for their safety, efficacy, and so forth.

The essence of the regulatory regime is based on the same fundamentals as in the prescription drug area, but in most cases these are drugs that are well-established and whose safety and efficacy have been determined previously. At the provincial level, there are additional controls, a more complex level of controls than typically exists for prescription drugs.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Secondly, as you may well know, this committee has travelled all over Canada, to most of the big cities, from Burlington to Toronto and from Montreal to Vancouver as well as to the Maritime provinces. Madam Chair, you must know that Burlington is also a very big city.

In the Maritimes, the committee became keenly aware, perhaps for the first time, of the current drug issue. Indeed, the committee should be concerned about the disproportionately high and unwarranted use of drugs. Earlier, I asked our researchers to recall for me the name of a particular drug. The drug in question is called Dilaudid, and it is of special concern in the Maritimes.

Is it in fact true that Canada does not have a central data bank which would allow authorities to monitor the situation in some way? For instance, could someone get a prescription from a physician in Nova Scotia and then go to a physician in P.E.I. and obtain the very same prescription? Is there in fact no practical way of controlling prescriptions issued in a particular province? Can you confirm for us that no such system exists and that this presents a problem for you? Finally, are there any recommendations that you would care to make to the committee?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: There is definitely an issue overall with the lack of networks between the various provincial jurisdictions. I would take it down to a lower level than that, the lack, in most jurisdictions, of networks tying together all pharmacies and physicians' offices to minimize the risk of things like double-doctoring, to use an expression, the idea that people can go to multiple physicians to get multiple prescriptions for a substance that they may not be using for appropriate reasons. That is an issue that is somewhat on the outside of our area of interest as an association representing non-prescription drugs, but there are certainly benefits to be had throughout the health care system.

I think, in this era of information technology, there are very simple solutions available to reduce the likelihood of that kind of double-doctoring with multiple prescription sourcing and, for that matter, non-prescription drug use. For instance, Quebec is a leader in the area of ensuring that all drugs purchased from schedule II, which is the pharmacist-controlled, behind-the-counter level of control, are entered into the patient's medical record. That's a unique requirement in the province of Quebec. That kind of control certainly offers the opportunity for information to be shared among pharmacies, as well as back to prescribing physicians if there are potential conflicts there.

¹ (1500)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But the schedule to which you are referring lists only prescription drugs.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: That's incorrect.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could it also list over-the-counter drugs?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you saying that “antiphlogistene” could be listed along with every other conceivable drug?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: No. A relatively limited number of drugs are listed in schedule II. This requirement applies to only a small number of over-the-counter drugs.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you go so far as to say—and this may be interesting, Madam Chair—that this committee should recommend the adoption by the rest of Canada of the Quebec model, which requires notations in medical records?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I think the context for that kind of recommendation would have to be one that doesn't yet exist. I think what we have here is an overlapping between the direct concerns of this committee, the abuse and non-medical use of drugs, and some of the very strong benefits to be had--to venture into other territory here--within the overall health care system by better connecting pharmacists and physicians, not only among each other, but between the two professions, to have that flow of information. If those kinds of networks were in place, I think that kind of recommendation might be seriously worth considering.

[Translation]

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

You know that the Senate has studied the whole issue of drug costs. I don't know whether you saw a program calledEnjeux which aired last fall. Fairly harsh criticism was levelled at pharmaceutical companies. The Senate, for instance, came to the conclusion that one of the pressures...

Currently, the leading cause of rising health care costs is the cost of drugs. I know that there are some nuances, but nonetheless this pressure is very real. The study I am talking about emphasizes that the problem arises in the first year after a drug arrives on the market. As such, the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board may not have been doing its job because there are many drugs on the market with nothing new to offer in terms of their therapeutic value.

Our problem now is finding ways to prevent people from abusing or becoming addicted to prescription drugs.

Do you think this committee should examine the role of pharmaceutical companies and how they might be regulated? For example, Enjeux reported that advertising agents for the pharmaceutical companies which, as we all know, contribute to the various political parties, had a very important role to play in promoting new drugs, but that these new drugs did not really have anything new to offer by way of medicinal value.

Do you think that we should examine the role of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the role of advertising agents? Should this be part of the committee's mandate?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I would suggest two points to consider in response to that. First, I would say that the role of drugs in the overall cost of health care is a very complex and certainly the fastest-growing component. There's no doubt about that, but at the same time, I think there is very strong evidence to suggest that by virtue of being the fastest-growing cost component, it has permitted substantial savings in other parts of the health care system.

Let me use that to segue into the second part of my response. One of the things we are most proud of as an industry--and I say that now in regard to the non-prescription drug industry--is that the cost of non-prescription drugs has historically stayed at or below the consumer price index, not only just with the price of individual drugs, but in the overall cost per dose of drugs. In other words, there is no hiding behind the new generations of drugs. The overall cost of non-prescription drugs as a total market has risen at approximately one-third the rate of prescribed drugs. That has a tremendous impact on the overall health care system, not only in being a low-cost component itself, but also by keeping people out of the physician's office, which is a much more expensive proposition.

It's a difficult thing for me, frankly, to make the connection with the non-medical use of drugs in particular. However, I will say there is a good historical basis for saying that the encouragement of the appropriate use of non-prescription drugs is something that has consistently been proven to reduce health care costs. Studies done here in Canada and abroad have demonstrated the very direct impacts of switching drugs from prescription status to non-prescription status. Provided we do this in a context that doesn't expose Canadians to greater availability of potential drugs of abuse, I certainly see that as a positive thing in the context of this committee's hearings, although I don't necessarily claim that it's a way of addressing the core of the committee's concerns.

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Derek Lee.

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

I'm still trying to sort out how many, what quantity, and what quality of drugs from the sector you represent find their way into what we would call non-medical uses with human beings etc. They may be used to fortify cement, but I'm not worried about that. It's human body targets I'm thinking about. You did allude to it. In your statement you actually described some of the non-medical diversions. Are there others you could refer us to?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: The list I gave you is essentially a list of approximately four or five drugs. In those instances we're talking about case reports in the literature of the order of low single digits per year. It's a very rare phenomenon, but I can expand a bit beyond that.

In that list we're talking about things like codeine. Obviously, the non-prescription availability of codeine is a matter of some controversy. The evaluation made to date is that the benefits of making it available, particularly with the relatively extreme controls that are in place, outweigh the risks, but we also have in that list dimenhydrinate, dextromethorphan, pseudoephedrine, and to a much lesser extent--in fact, I found one case report--diphenhydramine. So you have five drugs there.

Casting the net a little more broadly, you get into the area of herbal and alternative types of products that are available without prescription, which our members do manufacture; they are an active part of our bailiwick. There have been some instances with products like Chinese ephedra, which is, for lack of better terminology, the natural form from which things like ephedrine are extracted. There are some case reports involving this, and again, they are less on the recreational use side and more on the performance enhancement side for athletes and the like.

Mr. Derek Lee: Let me try to be even more specific to help myself out here. What are the social harms that would ensue from the diversions you've mentioned?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: In all cases there is the potential for negative medical consequences. Serious adverse health outcomes are extremely rare. In the short amount of time I was digging through the literature I wasn't able to find any reports of fatalities, for example, resulting directly from the abuse of non-prescription drugs, although there are case reports in the United States, where, I might add, there is not the same level of controls that we have in Canada for non-prescription drugs.

As to other potential social harms, certainly, when you're dealing with hallucinogens, you're dealing with social isolation to a certain extent, particularly as it is most often seen in younger people and there are developmental issues. It's not a matter of small consequence, it's a matter of great concern. I have to say that I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the profession of pharmacy as a whole for how they have handled that, because, as I said earlier, it has typically been a matter of local outbreaks, very constrained in timeframe. We have seen, particularly in provinces like Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, some really sterling efforts by organized pharmacy to intervene and put in place additional measures to deal with that. I would be remiss if I left out British Columbia, where, for example, one of the additional approaches they employed was to put package size limitations on the products they make available outside the dispensary area.

So there are measures that are in place within the regulatory framework, but I think there is also a lot of credit due to the profession of pharmacy for less formal measures, such as pilot projects and the like, to deal with some of those issues as they pop up.

¹ (1510)

Mr. Robert White: The only other thing we might mention is that there can be intentional suicides, but that's not just with non-prescription drugs. That's with any medication. It's a misuse, but an intentional misuse. That's not just for non-prescription, it can be for any medication at all.

Mr. Derek Lee: That could happen with shoe polish. If I choose to eat shoe polish with a fork for a couple of days, I have a medical problem, aside from others.

Are any of the drugs you have mentioned conducive to or would they lead to what I, as a layman, would call an addiction that would persist? Possibly they would feed an addiction, but would they lock in somebody indefinitely if their use persisted for a few days or a few weeks?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: In the literature I have reviewed, the more common issue is the one of tolerance. In other words, rather than so much being a matter of dependence, it's the idea that people are misusing these things as recreational drugs and find that over time the dose required to get the same psychotropic effect goes up. That is part of what makes them of limited usefulness to an abuser, because sooner or later they achieve a dose where the toxicity brings about the need for medical intervention and tends to put paid to the whole exercise.

Mr. Robert White: By the way, one of the regulatory requirements they look at in a drug as to whether it should be non-prescription or prescription is whether it can actually create dependency. If it creates dependency, there probably would be a very strong reason not to make it non-prescription.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I would hasten to add that there is one exception to that rule. As you know, nicotine replacement therapy is an over-the-counter drug. The argument can be made that this is what you're dealing with there, but obviously, we are talking about a harm-reduction strategy. Obviously, the nicotine replacement is preferable to cigarette smoke.

Mr. Robert White: Yes, I hadn't forgotten that one, but when you were talking about nicotine, I was thinking more of tobacco. You're right, that's a dependency, but that would be a dependency going from smoking cigarettes to a nicotine patch or a nicotine gum, and obviously, you don't get all the other carcinogens. So yes, there is a non-prescription drug that can result in dependency.

Mr. Derek Lee: Just for the record, for my own purposes, then, we're replacing nicotine with nicotine on a non-prescription basis.

¹ (1515)

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Yes. The idea behind nicotine replacement therapy--and I want to make my comments very clear--is that nicotine, pharmacologically, is a drug that produces dependence.

Mr. Derek Lee: I've heard that it's one of the most addictive of all the drugs.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Absolutely. Nicotine replacement therapy is an overall program. The product in question is part of a program designed to break that dependence. I don't want to suggest that it's a matter of our putting a product that creates dependency on the market; it's a pharmacological dependence-inducing agent that is part of a program to break the dependence. I think most of us are familiar with the basis of NRT, nicotine replacement therapy, but strictly speaking, it does fall under that category.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, I wasn't trying to make you defensive. I fully support the harm reduction nicotine replacement therapies. It's just that in looking at other areas of non-medical use of drugs, we had looked at replacing heroin with heroin and other things with other things in an attempt to bring people into the health system.

In any event, thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Does either of you know the components of ecstasy?

Mr. Robert White: The components in ecstasy usually start off with something called safrole oil, which then goes through a number of different chemical steps with some other chemicals. That's what produces ecstasy, but it's not with any non-prescription ingredient. They are actual chemicals that are definitely not used in our industry. Saffrol oil or sassafras can be used in some scents, but it's in very low concentrations in those types of products.

Mr. Randy White: I think ecstasy can be made with components you can get in any store. Is that not accurate? It doesn't need prescription components.

Mr. Robert White: I don't believe you can get the components in any store, but I think, if you actively searched for them, you'd be able to get some of the components. Some of them are very difficult to get. That's the reason we do have some regulations being put in place now, to help prevent precursors from getting into people's hands. They will require end use declarations, which means anyone buying this product will have to declare not only their name, address, phone number and all the contact information, but also what the end use of the product is. This will prevent illegitimate uses of the product and will continue to allow industry to use that in legitimate products. It will help to prevent the illegitimate use of these products for illicit drugs.

Mr. Randy White: Organized crime, I think it's fair to say, would probably be three steps ahead of you, the police, and everybody else. If you find a way to cut those components off, they'll come out with ecstasy-plus or some other product made from derivatives of other things in our society. Would that not be reasonable? Shoe polish....

Mr. Gerry Harrington: We had some discussion about this a little earlier in the question and answer period. One of the key aspects of the new regulations we've been working on with Health Canada and the RCMP is to create a framework whereby, as new precursors are identified, there is the ability to amend the schedules to these regulations in order to get right back into being one step ahead, yet again, of the organized crime approach. What was really needed and doesn't currently exist, but we hope to see introduced within the next six to twelve months, is a framework to deal with things like the licensing of the manufacturers of these potential precursors, to control import and export and to ensure that when they are sold by legitimate businesses, we can create a paper trail that traces, from origin to end use, where these chemicals are going.

The key step forward we're taking is that we will now have the regulatory and legislative framework to deal with these issues as they pop up. There is little doubt that in this age of the easy availability of scientific information through the Internet and otherwise, people will find new approaches, but we're now looking forward to a time when we will have the regulatory framework to deal with this.

¹ (1520)

Mr. Randy White: I brought this up before. It's my opinion that ecstasy, which comes in a pill form, is to the young people--I suppose now even to all generations in North America--just a pill. This pill makes you do something else. But if you look at any ad on television for anything from Tylenol to aspirin, you name it, you'll see that we are a society of pills. As opposed to marijuana, which a lot of young people don't want to smoke--it's a dirty habit, that sort of thing--this is just a pill. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how complacent we as a society have become with pills in general.

Mr. Robert White: I'll just make one comment before Gerry answers. This is probably a $20 pill, so the people know they're paying $20. That's very much different from non-prescription drugs that are used for self-limiting conditions.

Mr. Randy White: That's a good point.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I think there are issues with that. In fact, this is something that has been debated publicly, not only in Canada, but elsewhere. More specifically, the idea of the promotion of legitimate medicine for medical usage, it has been alleged, perhaps creates a mindset that lowers the barriers to non-medical use. In the 1970s there was a lot of discussion on that both in Canada and the United States, to the extent that some studies were done trying to see if there was an association between the promotion of medical drugs and the non-medical use of drugs in a number of jurisdictions. The approach taken was simply to compare jurisdictions where there was more open promotion and advertising of non-prescription drugs to see if there was any correlation with drug use in those jurisdictions compared to jurisdictions where such promotion was not legal or was very strictly controlled. Several Scandinavian jurisdictions did not permit non-prescription drug advertising, and Germany in particular put very stiff controls on it. So you could make very legitimate distinctions between those two environments. No connection was established between the level of medical promotion of drugs and the illicit or recreational use of drugs. I think it is an intuitive point, and I think we need to be very attuned to it. But I would say that so far the evidence suggests there's not really a strong linkage, at least on the promotional front.

Mr. Randy White: Finally, on nicotine replacement therapy, why not have a cocaine patch, a heroin patch, and an angel dust patch? Is the day coming when addicts could actually have a non-prescription patch?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I put it to you that it's less a pharmacological issue, in all likelihood, than it is a social issue. I'd be very surprised, frankly, if the barriers are pharmacological. I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the scientific core of our industry to find ways of making that type of thing possible, but before we get there, there are social and legal issues that would have to be resolved.

I think nicotine replacement therapy has been one of the more successful new product development areas in the non-prescription drug industry. It's very satisfying, from our standpoint, to see something that not only creates economic opportunity and the rest, but has also had a very significant impact on the level of smoking cessation, in Canada and the United States in particular. There's good science coming out on what has happened since those products have become available without a prescription. Indeed, it is intriguing to think what other such applications might be out there.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chair: I found it interesting, Mr. Harrington, that you started with the literature review. I think that is probably a good indicator. Literature tends to be produced when people are starting to worry about something and note trends and what have you.

I must tell you, it was a little shocking to talk to addicts and people who were familiar with young people and some of the products they are using to reach various states of euphoria. Sometimes it is not just the use of Gravol, let us say, or dextromethorphan. Sometimes it is the combinations of things, frequently it is in combination with other drugs, illicit and prescription drugs. It just can't be making the situation any better for those individuals.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Absolutely.

The Chair: From my own personal experience in taking Robaxacet once, I am wondering why they are available over the counter. Mr. White thinks they are great, but the effect was so profound on me that I wonder why they are available.

What process is being undertaken by an association like yours to really communicate with people that these products, while they do clearly provide a benefit to some people under certain situations, have devastating effects on others? Sure, there is a warning not to operate a vehicle, but we see enough of those, and does anyone really take them seriously? How do we increase that level of awareness? I didn't operate a vehicle. I did read that part. I was having a serious muscle spasm in my back and there was nothing else I could do in the short term, but I'll tell you, I was knocked out by that stuff.

¹ (1525)

Mr. Gerry Harrington: There are a couple of issues raised there for sure. First and foremost, there is the fact that very often there are subpopulations that have a different response to a given medicinal ingredient from that of the majority of the population. The evaluation that has to happen is whether the consequences for that subpopulation are so worrisome that we have to consider taking away the broader benefit in a wider population. That is on one level.

What I did hear that certainly struck a chord with me is the idea of reinforcing the message to read the label and to treat drugs with respect. The mere fact that a product like that is available over the counter doesn't mean it is pharmacologically less important. On the contrary, the potency of over-the-counter drugs today is stronger than it has ever been. That is because of advances in science. Actually, that is an area the industry is looking at, encouraging voluntary efforts and considering seriously the possibility of launching information campaigns, public affairs campaigns, that sort of direction. Also, through redesigning product labels and standardizing label design, we are looking at potential ways of highlighting more forcefully the warnings and precautions, contraindications and those types of things. There is a lot of good science coming out right now, never mind the chemistry, on the whole communication side of drug therapy.

Your point is very well taken. I think there is more we can do, and we are looking at what those exact measures might be.

Mr. Robert White: I think Mr. Harrington is right that different people do respond in different ways. I used the product you spoke about once. Actually, it helped the muscle spasms in my back, but I sure didn't have any other ill effects. I guess it all depends on--

The Chair: I didn't feel I had any ill effects either, let me tell you. I felt really too good.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Let me highlight one of the issues you raised, because it is another issue we're dealing with. That particular product line comes in a number of different formulations. Unless I am mistaken, there is one formulation that includes codeine. That may have been what you were responding to.

The Chair: More cheers from that section over there.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: As a back pain sufferer, I hear you.

The Chair: However, it does become a problem when people don't understand that I could be on other medications. I could be diabetic. I could be taking something over the counter as well, like an aspirin. So you need to ask the pharmacist and you need to read the labels. In a multicultural and multi-educational population, you have to be really careful. These things again are intended for a purpose, which is to improve our quality of life, but there are long-term implications, and even short-term implications, if they are not used properly. To create an environment where we can actually have that discussion and encourage people to seek out the information is, I think, part of the broader picture of what we, hopefully, will be advocating as a committee, because it's not just cigarettes and alcohol, where there is lots of education, it's prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

The issue of ecstasy has been brought up a couple of times. I'm so shocked with many of the young people. When you talk to them about marijuana, heroin, and cocaine, they kind of get that, but when you say something about ecstasy they give you a look like, that's what you mean too by drugs? Oh. You know, everyone does it. First , everyone is not doing it. Second, it's a drug, it has implications for our physiology, and we should be careful about that. I encourage you to keep working on that front.

I have two other questions. One concerns Sudafed. You mentioned that relates to the manufacture of speed? Is that why it's not available in the United States?

¹ (1530)

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Sudafed is available in the United States.

The Chair: Oh, but the product Sudafed--

Mr. Robert White: It may not be called Sudafed, but there are pseudoephedrine-containing products available in the United States as well as Canada.

The thing is that once again it's the drug enforcement agency in the U.S., which has something called the Methamphetamine Control Act, and it has restrictions similar to Canada that require both import and export provisions. However, with Canada's regulatory framework coming into place now, there has been a lot of discussion about a lot of the pseudoephedrine actually coming from Canada as the originating source. In the future, if any company in Canada wants to ship something to the United States, they have to get an import certificate from Health Canada. Health Canada will then send this to the U.S. and ask if it has any concerns about that product and that quantity being shipped to the U.S. If it does, it will stop shipment and the product will not be allowed through the border. If not and it's for legitimate manufacturers, the shipment will proceed. Once we have these controls, I think we will have a lot better framework in place.

Also, the import and export provisions and record keeping mean every company that gets pseudoephedrine raw material will have to keep a record of what they have on day one of the year, what they have at the end of the year, and what they have actually shipped out, and everything should add up. There shouldn't be large quantities that have gone unaccounted for. Those records will have to be provided to Health Canada on an annual basis and they will be audited.

The Chair: Finally, as an association, you probably have some communications with your members about codes of conduct, advertising codes, some kind of framework for their education, or controls within companies on some of the products. If we could get a copy of some of those communication documents, that would be very helpful to us. If you are aware of what equivalent associations are doing in the United States or Europe, that would also be of interest.

Mr. Robert White: I might mention some of the documents we will be sending you. They are all on the public area of our website and can be seen in that way. The website is www.NDMAC.ca. Those codes and voluntary guidelines used by our industry are available there for public view.

The Chair: Okay, terrific.

Alors, nous avons un peu plus de temps, s'il y a d' autres questions.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I would like to address a broader perspective of which the group you represent is probably a major part. I want to try to find out how big a part. With the non-medical use of drugs, the item involved is drugs, but a drug is kind of an indefinite, undefined thing, something that may be a food, a drug, or shoe polish. We're not sure ourselves, but generally, we have a sense of what drugs are. There is the broad spectrum of drugsbeing manufactured in Canada. The federal government and the provinces have regulated the prescription drug side. What proportion of the overall industry is the non-prescription drug manufacturers? It may be a dollar amount or some other number.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Gerry Harrington: The interesting bit there is that if you measure it by dollar amount--and that's using the broadest definition of what constitutes a non-prescription drug, in which I would include things like vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and the like--you're looking at approximately $3 billion out of a total drug tab of the order of approximately $12 billion. It's roughly 25% in dollar terms. By the way, the more often quoted $15 billion figure for the total drug market includes pharmacist fees, so I'm leaving that out of the picture. I'm talking about the actual cost of the drugs themselves. If, on the other hand, you measure it by the number of pills consumed, because the cost of non-prescription drugs is so much lower, there are approximately equal numbers of drugs consumed on the two sides.

With treatment occasions, for which we do annual surveys, roughly 85% of Canadians report having used some sort of non-prescription drug in the previous 12 months, compared with approximately 60% of the population reporting prescription drug use.

Mr. Derek Lee: We are looking at a century ahead of us where the populations of the developed world, and perhaps even the less developed world, will be consuming more and more things I would see as being in the category of drugs to enhance their nutrition and medical conditions, to ward off diseases, to achieve mental states appropriate to their working circumstances, to get rid of headaches, all those things. Generations to come will be consuming, consuming, consuming. The group you represent will be manufacturing, by current measurement, about half the quantity, not the dollar amount. I think the committee sees a need to educate the population a lot better than we're doing, because they will be buying, eating, drinking, and swallowing this stuff left and right to improve their lives, lifestyles, etc., and how they look. Has your industry, the 50% you represent, perceived a need to participate in this challenge of educating not the 75-year-old, but the 15-year-old or the 10-year-old in what we're dealing with here?

Mr. Gerry Harrington: I think that is easily the biggest challenge ahead for our industry. In our submission to the Romanow commission we put forward the view strongly that there needs to be a multi-stakeholder approach to educating consumers before they're even consumers. We have to look at our use of the education system. Obviously, the context we're talking about when we made those comments was not focused entirely on non-medical use, but on the medical use and on the appropriate use of these products. It is simply too important to the state of our health care system, to the physical health of the population, to avoiding the development of serious social problems associated with inappropriate use, and to our economy not to take this opportunity to get in there and communicate at a very early age, when attitudes are formed, when practices start to develop, to get a healthy respect for the positive role, as well as the potential harm from inappropriate use of prescribed or non-prescribed drugs. I think it is a hugely important thing.

We had a retreat of our board of directors, the leaders of this industry in June, where the very issue of communicating broadly to consumers about these types of issues became the thrust of what will become our strategic plan for the next ten years. It is vital. This industry used to see itself as essentially a branch of the chemicals business. We were in the business of producing chemicals and doing chemistry. That's much less than half of what we do now. We're in the information business, and public education is increasingly a major part of the mandate of these companies. It's part of their business.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Derek Lee: That's good to know. Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What are the criteria for drawing up lists of over-the-counter drugs or prescription drugs?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Health Canada has a list of ten criteria. They are available from the website of the therapeutic products program. From memory, I could probably give you two or three, but I will not attempt to do that. There is a list of ten criteria to establish what is a drug that must be sold on prescription. That's the premier niveau, the first cascading level that must be passed. Among those criteria, as I said at the outset of my presentation, was that if a drug possessed a dependence or abuse potential that is likely to lead to harmful non-medical use, that is a criterion for maintaining prescription drug status. There are nine others. Once those criteria have not been met, in other words, Health Canada has determined that it does not require prescription, each of the next three levels of control that are available, schedule II, which requires that the drug be sold only from behind the dispensary counter of a pharmacy, has a list of eight or nine criteria.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Therefore, it is impossible for a product to be sold over the counter in Quebec but not in Ontario. This is really a federal matter and the same drugs are classed as prescription drugs in all provinces.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Harrington: There is a an overlap of jurisdiction. If the federal government approves a drug for non-prescription sale, it is possible for the provincial government to say it will maintain prescription status in the province. That is actually physically possible. The jurisdiction is there. However, if the federal government requires prescription status, it is not possible for the province to be more liberal. In other words, it cannot say, in this province it shall be sold without a prescription.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I know that the list of refundable drugs is drawn up by the provinces and in Quebec, we have a pharmaceutical committee.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you are shedding some light on this area. It might be a good idea for our researchers to provide us with these criteria in the coming days so we can review the list—if it is on Internet, there is no problem—and bear it in mind before debating the report. I am only talking about the list of criteria.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: There is the federal list, that is the list used by the nine provinces other than Quebec for over-the-counter drugs. Quebec uses a list for three classes of products sold over the counter which is slightly different from the one uses by the other provinces.

I could certainly send you a copy of these three lists once I get back to my office.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That would be great, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: In a scenario where something was an over-the-counter drug, are there any examples of where a province would say, no, we'll still make it a prescription drug? Usually, it wouldn't want to do that, because it would mean it would have to reimburse.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Absolutely. In fact, there were a lot of examples perhaps 10 years ago. One of the things we have been working very hard towards since I started in this industry 20 years ago is harmonizing the approach through all jurisdictions in Canada. I don't think today there is any example of a drug that is prescriptional at some provincial level, but is federally OTC. However, less than 10 years ago there were quite a few examples.

We are making great strides towards a harmonized system. It remains a provincial jurisdiction, but as you heard from NAPRA this morning, this is a national body made up of the provincial pharmacy regulators, who have the support of nine provinces for a harmonized approach. Quebec is outside that system. Ironically, Quebec was sort of the author of that system. Quebec is outside that system now, but we are hopeful that in the long term it might be a coast-to-coast system.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Finally--if no one else has any questions--I think one of the interesting things from talking with people about their own habits with over-the-counter drugs, as you mentioned earlier, is that some of the over-the-counter drugs are more potent than they might have been 20 years ago. People took two aspirins and it was “call me in the morning”. Each of those aspirins or Tylenol or Advil or whatever has so much more potency. I know the habit is that you take two and the pain goes away, but often you could just take one. No one ever thinks about that. In some ways, it's not really in your industry's interest to do that, because clearly, more product will be moved if people continue to take two, but it is in our society's interest that you help communicate that message: re-evaluate what you're doing from time to time.

Mr. Gerry Harrington: Absolutely.

The Chair: I think it would be an important piece of a national education program if you, the pharmacists, the doctors, and everybody worked together to communicate and reinforce the messages, because what we hear from young people particularly is that they're just not getting any information. When they are, it may be one program in grade 7, and that's it. Clearly, our lives and needs change over time, and we need to have a better process to discuss these things as a country. Ultimately, it's in all of our interests. That's my little plea.

Thank you very much for coming to speak with us today. I'm sure we learned a lot. We look forward to looking at the website ourselves or receiving some information from you. If there are other things you think of as a result of this meeting or in the next couple of days, you could flag them for us and send them to Carol Chafe, our clerk. That would be wonderful. Thank you, and good luck with your work.

Colleagues, we'll suspend until 4 p.m.

¹ (1548)

º (1610)

The Chair: I will call the committee back to order. We are the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. We have with us as a witness this afternoon from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Terry Cormier, the director of the International Crime Division.

Mr. Cormier, welcome. You have a presentation, copies of which are available to us in English and French. We will let you go through that, and then I am sure we will have some questions for you.

Mr. Terry Cormier (Director, International Crime Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me here this afternoon.

[English]

What I would like to do in the next 10 minutes is to run very quickly through a presentation that will give you a very quick synopsis of the international dimension of the drug policy issues. I am very aware that the committee has been working on this issue for a considerable length of time, that you have undertaken considerable research, and that you have a great deal of expertise in the area. I will be going extremely quickly, so interrupt me at any point or ask me questions at the end, please.

What I would like to do is set the context and describe some of the challenges in dealing with drug policy on the international stage. I would like to talk a little bit about the international legal architecture that exists. I will talk briefly about some of the most recent international developments with respect to drug policy. Then I will focus on some of the policy challenges.

First is the international dimension of this issue. It is a very multi-dimensional issue. There are many different aspects of the question. It is a law enforcement issue, it is a customs issue, it is a health issue, it is a justice issue. It is a very important and broad issue for society. The issue is discussed in many different types of fora. It is discussed principally in the United Nations system of organizations; there are a series of UN fora that discuss drug issues. It is also discussed in regional fora. I want to talk very briefly about our experience in the Organization of American States. I want to leave you with the message that different countries have different perceptions with respect to the drug problems in their societies. I think it is fair to say that every society appreciates that the challenge of substance abuse is a critical challenge for that society.

This is just to give you a bit of an idea why the Department of Foreign Affairs is involved in these kinds of issues. The workI do is focused on the international aspects of public safety, of protecting Canadians from certain transborder threats. The reality is that as the world becomes increasingly global--and there are many benefits from this for business people--goods, money, products, ideas, people cross borders with increased frequency, as do criminals and terrorists who want to take advantage of it. There is a need for a global response. One of the challenges here is the horizontality of the issue and the fact that it affects so many different aspects of societies and so many different stakeholders.

[Translation]

Obviously, the federal government is not the only body interested in this issue. There are also the municipalities, the provinces and other players in society that have a significant role to play in resolving or managing this problem for our society.

[English]

I will come back to that, if you are interested, afterwards.

Broadly, some problems are created because there is a very substantial trade in drugs internationally. Corruption is obviously one. When you have huge profit margins, as you do for the traffic in these kinds of illicit substances, it's quite easy to buy off law enforcement officials and judicial officials. This happens in many states, and it creates an environment in which lawlessness can prevail and presents serious challenges for governance. It engenders violence, because again of the profits that are associated with it and the fact that it is an illegal activity. It can undermine the state and the rule of law, and it has in a number of jurisdictions that we can take a look at. I think Afghanistan is an excellent example. The experience of Afghanistan, which became a narco-state and provides approximately 70% of the world's heroin, made possible other kinds of activities on its soil.

There are problems of economic dislocation, of the movement of economic activities that are associated with the drug trade, whether that be in a city in Canada or in a country in another part of the world. There are many health issues associated with the drug trade. The trade, because it is so profitable and because there is so much money involved in it and it's dirty money, engenders a whole range of experiences in money laundering and trying to process this dirty money into clean money. It is also very closely associated with the traffic in firearms. It is a dangerous activity, and it causes many problems for the safety and security of Canadian citizens.

The UN, very briefly, for the last 50 years has been involved in these issues. It has a whole structure that manages the issues. There is the Economic and Social Council, which has overall policy management. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs reports to the Economic and Social Council, EcoSoc, as it's called. There is the International Narcotics Control Board, which is the secretariat that manages the statistics for the flow of a whole of a range of controlled substances, because the international community has schedules that control hundreds of different types of chemicals and drugs. Then there is the World Health Organization, which has a role in making recommendations for the changing of drugs from one schedule to another in the three conventions.

With this hemisphere, I want to point out the enormous progress that has taken place in the Organization of American States, and it is Canadian leadership that has created this. I want you to be aware of this. The Canadian government led the process that developed a multilateral evaluation mechanism, a peer evaluation mechanism for the drug problem in the OAS family of nations, which has 80 different criteria that look at not only the supply side of the drug problem, but also demand reduction. What it has done is broaden the debate to a fuller understanding of the range of challenges drugs present for our societies.

There are three international drug conventions. I am sure you have read about them. They all have a similar objective, to limit the production of and trade in prohibited substances. The first one, the Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, established the UN architecture, set it up as a criminal process. It deals with the problem through criminal penalties and established a series of schedules for different types of substances. The Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 has the same kind of approach. It followed the template of the previous one, with schedules of control and requiring drugs to be listed. The Convention against Illicit Trade in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 is another instrument of international criminal law. Parties to the convention are required to undertake certain obligations. It is broad, in that it goes into areas like, for instance, the protection of fundamental human rights.

º (1615)

I guess one of the questions that will be current in Canada for the next little while has to do with the cannabis possession. In the legal community it depends which lawyer you speak to. The consensus view in the Department of Foreign Affairs legal community would be that it is not possible to decriminalize cannabis and to be in conformity with the three conventions. I think there is scope for trying to understand exactly what that means. I'm not a lawyer by training, but I would be happy to try to clarify if you have any questions on this particular aspect. It is a critical one, I think. Parties do have some latitude with respect to the penalties and sanctions they can implement to be in conformity with the conventions, and the conventions, of course, explicitly recognize domestic law.

I've spoken to you a little bit about the Organization of American States and the multilateral evaluation mechanism we've developed in that process. I'll just make the point again that the approach here is one of trying to broaden the understanding of the impact of drugs in our society.

The position I have in the Department of Foreign Affairs with respect to international drug policy is the anticipation of future threats. I think it's important for us to be thinking about what the future environment is and what the trends have been in the consumption of drugs in our society. I think we are a much more medicalized society than we were a generation ago. The facility with which new drugs, chemical drugs, like ecstasy, and the amphetamine type stimulants, can be produced--and the production methods become increasingly easy to use--means that these are challenges we ought to be thinking about. It's not that far into the future that we will be facing these kinds of challenges.

Another important challenge we face is keeping some relative equilibrium between the international and domestic contexts in which an issue like this is discussed. We obviously discuss these kinds of questions with a whole range of other states, and there is obviously movement in the international community in how these kinds of issues are being addressed. The international environment is changing. You're aware, for instance, of the measures the U.K. has undertaken this past summer. I know you have visited Holland, Germany, and Switzerland, and I know you're aware of the approaches that are being used in other jurisdictions.

Substance abuse issues, I think, now are being considered in a broader context than in the past. I think there is a greater recognition that we have an obligation to look at this in terms of the harm these substances create in our society and to look at measures to reduce that harm. There is a growing recognition that we should differentiate between different classes of drugs also. I think there is an increased appreciation of the full range of social, political, and economic impacts substance abuse issues have for our societies.

In conclusion, I would just like to make the point that one of the approaches Canada generally tries to take internationally is to promote the multilateralism of international rules. We like to try to encourage the international community to look at multilateral approaches for dealing with international issues. There are international aspects to this problem, but of course, it is a domestic issue, and Canada has enormous latitude in how it approaches it. Substance abuse issues are critical social and policy issues that involve many different actors at many different levels, including internationally.

Thank you very much.

º (1620)

[Translation]

I am available to answer your questions in your preferred language. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

[English]

For the benefit of my colleagues, I would just identify that you have brought with you several individuals from your department. One of those is Cynthia Boyko, who was invaluable in organizing our trips to Europe and to the United States. Thank you, Ms. Boyko. We really appreciate the assistance we received setting up those meetings at fairly short notice and in a very tight timeframe. They certainly helped the work of the committee.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: : Thank you, Madam Chair.

Anybody who talks that quickly in committee hearings either is in a very big rush or is from Newfoundland.

Mr. Terry Cormier: I'm sorry if I went too fast.

Mr. Randy White: That's okay. I can sympathize with you.

The consequence of our decisions internationally I would like to get you to comment on, in particular with the Americans. When we were in Europe, we basically heard that their policies are influenced by American positions on other things, such as trade. I'm reminded of a situation I'm involved with right now, if you can believe it, Canadians trying to get access to refugee hearings, with Americans who are avoiding prosecution--they call it persecution in the States--coming to Canada and applying for refugee status as a result of drug prosecutions. I'm wondering if you can comment on how much the Americans would be looking at the impact of any significant decisions that may come from this committee or the House of Commons.

Mr. Terry Cormier: I'd be happy to. This is obviously a very important issue.

In particular with respect to domestic social questions, there's no question that the American administration takes a fairly conservative view on drug control issues at the present time. I think they've made that clear--I've certainly had American officials make that very clear to me. I think the situation in the United States of America is in some ways similar to the situation in this country, in that there is an active debate going on in the society about the appropriate way to deal with these kinds of substances in the society. It is not a monolithic kind of discussion that is taking place in the United States. There are a dozen states, 10 or 12, that have already taken fairly progressive moves with respect to cannabis. Nevada has got legislation in draft form that would essentially legalize it. California has a regime in place that is, when you take a look at it, quite liberal. They don't prosecute beyond a certain minimum threshold.

So I think the first point is that the situation in the United States is as it is in Canada, one in which different actors are involved in discussing the appropriate responses. From a relationship point of view with our American friends, it is critical that any measures Canada takes are ones that take full account of any perceived negative effect our measures could have on the United States of America. I would think there are ways in which you can do that.

But I think we need to be engaging with them, and we are. We do have a discussion going on with the United States of America at many different levels with respect to these kinds of issues. It's a problem that we share. The traffic in drugs, for instance, is a two-way traffic. The cocaine that enters Canada for the most part comes from the United States of America by land. These are known facts.

We have shared interests here, and I think the kind of response you would get from the United States would depend on who you're speaking to there, at what particular time you're speaking to them, and what measures you've taken to try to engage them and ensure that whatever measures we effect take into account any perceived negative impact they could have on them. It's not as direct an answer to your question as you'd like, I'm sure, Mr. White, but I'm happy to take it again if you wish.

º (1625)

Mr. Randy White: No, that's fine. I do have some other questions.

What is on page 6 of your presentation, “International Institutional Structure”, strikes me as a continuation of many other organizations in this country that are working on the drug issue. Corrections Canada has got even its own research organization set up, Health Canada's got a number, Customs. There are more organizations studying this issue and looking at it, with police and so on, and on it goes. It's a billion dollar industry, as we know. Do you think we're winning at this point in the difficult problem of drugs in our society, with all of these organizations that are in force today?

Mr. Terry Cormier: I would ask you to try to define what you mean by winning the problem of drugs in our society. I don't know what you mean by that.

Mr. Randy White: Winning to me would be having fewer addicts than previously, spending less money as a result of fewer addicts. Do you think we're achieving something with all of this in place?

Mr. Terry Cormier: There are many different agencies in government involved with the issue, as you mentioned. It's a very broad, horizontal issue, and it's a challenge for governments, it really is.

The statistics here do not point to any decrease in the consumption of drugs in society, on the contrary. I think one of the things we need is as much hard science and evidence as possible. We ought to have more than we presently have. The statistics I see do not lead me in any way to believe the problem of substance abuse in our society is decreasing.

If one looks back over the last 25 years, one needs to acknowledge the progress that has been made in a number of areas. Very significant progress has been made in Canada with regard to tobacco, for instance, which is a very addictive drug that causes all kinds of health issues. The culture and the environment in which tobacco is considered in Canada today is very different from what it was 25 years ago. The same is true with regard to alcohol in respect of the tolerance of drinking and driving. There has been improvement there. You can point to noticeable and appreciable statistical declines with regard to tobacco and alcohol consumption and alcohol and driving and its problems in society.

For illegal drugs there is much less research available. The research is not being done in any kind of substantive way. The United States has quite excellent statistics gathering capabilities. Canada is developing its capabilities, as are some European countries. From the figures I see from the various agencies, I don't see a decline.

º (1630)

Mr. Randy White: I would suggest that we don't even know where we are on that. Since we haven't done a national poll since 1997, it would be difficult to even have a base.

I'm of the opinion that a fair bit of money is going into government departments, but the government departments basically don't have goals and don't monitor how well they're doing. In many cases they're getting money and it's going into a black hole. That is my definition of the amount of money from government that's going into these departments. Would you say all the money is being effectively used, or do we need better coordination among these departments, or perhaps even one coordinating body?

Mr. Terry Cormier: I would say there's a real challenge in dealing with issues that are so interconnected and involve so many different stakeholders. If you're dealing with the issue of substance abuse in your communities, you need to have stakeholders involved at various levels and from a whole range of different.... And there clearly are problems in ensuring the integration of services available in the community to help people who have serious substance abuse problems and making them available to them. I would say we need to be doing a better job there. I think the level of cooperation that exists among the federal actors who work on this issue is really quite good, and there's an active discussion about it.

It's essentially a political issue, of course, and an issue on which there have to be very clear signals about the direction in which we want society to go.

Mr. Randy White: Finally, if I were to suggest that for individuals caught possessing five grams of marijuana--let's use that for argument's sake--there would be a summary conviction or a fine of $200, would you say it is the consensus point of view from the UN declarations that it is not possible to do that?

Mr. Terry Cormier: No, I would not say that.

Mr. Randy White: What is your reference on page 10, then? It says, “The consensus view is that it is not possible to decriminalize cannabis and be in conformity with the three conventions.”

Mr. Terry Cormier: The architecture of the UN conventions explicitly requires that the signatories make certain things criminal offences. It does not limit the thresholds at which certain activities need to be criminal offences, so it would be possible to assert certain thresholds, I would think. But again, I am not a lawyer. If you would care to address the question to me in writing, I will give you a response with the advice of the legal counsel from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

My understanding is that the approach you described is essentially the approach the United Kingdom has embarked upon. The U.K. may have gone a bit further in some areas. There have been some stories that it is no longer cautioning for possession of small quantities in some parts of the U.K. Other jurisdictions that are taking different approaches to dealing with the question of cannabis in society would argue that they remain in conformity with the conventions, despite the fact that they are taking a different approach. You are aware, for instance, that in the Netherlands it remains a criminal offence to possess cannabis. It is on the books as a criminal offence, and as you know, it is not enforced beyond a certain threshold.

As I said in my presentation, this is essentially a legal question. It clearly has to be considered in the changing international context, and the changing domestic context too. These are instruments of sovereign states that make commitments to try to deal with commonly understood issues. Understandings change, perceptions change. There are avenues open, for instance, for changing where certain drugs might be in the schedules to the UN conventions, which your committee might want to consider in respect of its recommendations to government.

º (1635)

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your presentation was quite similar to one given by your colleague from the Department of Justice. He was the third witness to appear before our committee and we have since heard from a number of academics, including one individual who is no doubt well known to your department, namely Line Beauchesne, a professor at the University of Ottawa located not very far from here. She has authored two major works and promotes a somewhat different vision. She argues that from the standpoint of international law, nothing is stopping us from proceeding with decriminalization, providing that we have effective anti-smuggling policies in place. These are obviously two different considerations, even though we do know that a system prohibiting drug use leads to smuggling on a scale with which you are quite familiar.

First things first. Conventions do not create a legal obligation. Canada, for example, is a signatory to the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and to the Convention on Economic Rights. If certain legal obligations were associated to the fact that Canada failed to meet all of its commitments - for example, its commitment to fight poverty - then clearly it would find itself in a very bad situation indeed.

So we have to bear in mind that conventions do not create any legal obligation. However, there are verification mechanisms in place requiring Canada to submit periodic reports to the international community and if we stray too far from our objectives, we could be subject to retaliatory action from the United States. However, no legal obligation applies.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. Terry Cormier: No, I do not agree with such an assertion. However, it does underscore the point I raised, namely that legal experts are currently debating this matter in order to find out how far we can go while still complying with the conventions. Moreover, the circumstances in which this discussion is taking place are evolving.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But let's start at the beginning. In matters of domestic law, the fact that Canada is a signatory to the conventions does not create a legal obligation. Do we agree on that? Or, if that's not the case, what legal obligation is there on our part?

Mr. Terry Cormier: First of all, let me repeat that I am not a legal expert.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And it's a good thing for you that you're not.

Mr. Terry Cormier: Canada fulfills its international obligations and does not sign international conventions unless it intends to abide by their terms and conditions. Canada has signed three international conventions that include certain obligations requiring that certain things be done.

There are many people, myself included, who feel that this results in a limitation of our sphere of activity. I believe that having signed these conventions, we are a party to them and as such, our sphere of activity is restricted.

However, that does not mean that we have no room whatsoever to maneuver and the question of how far we can go is open to discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot say anything more than that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like it if—because this is a question that this committee will have to answer—our clerk or our researcher could send you the two or three briefs submitted by the academics. Perhaps you have already read them, but your department and the legal services will need to...

Your presentation is very similar to the one given by your departmental colleagues who appeared. They were among the first witnesses who represented the Department of Justice. The information that we received from these people who interpret the law is that, of course, we live in the shadow of the United States, with all of the positive and negative things that this entails, but the international obligation that we have pertains to the fight against drug smuggling.

Our report could of course contain a recommendation to decriminalize while maintaining very active anti-smuggling policies.

º (1640)

Mr. Terry Cormier: If you would like to ask me some very specific questions, I would be very pleased to provide some very clear answers, in short order, with the assistance of the departmental legal section.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The question that I would like to ask you is as follows, and you can respond in writing: In terms of a legal obligation, what would that imply if we tried to go a little bit further? If we go ahead and decriminalize—and I am not presuming that the committee will be going in this direction as we have not yet discussed the matter among ourselves—do you feel that our anti-smuggling activities constitute a way for us to fulfill our obligations?

Let's move on to another subject. We were handed a rather voluminous document of about 200 pages reporting on what every OAS country was or was not doing. In addition, one of your colleagues from the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General presented this document to us in detail.

To your knowledge, when reference is made to multilateral assessment mechanisms, has Canada ever espoused the following point of view:

One of the fairly convincing demonstrations made before this committee pertained to the fact that the United States has a prohibitionist strategy in place. There has been no correlation between countries that have prohibitionist strategies, such as the United States, and consumption trends for different drugs. In other words, people will not take less drugs because of this particular strategy.

According to the graphs we were shown, drug consumption rates are lower in countries that do not have prohibitionist strategies.

In concrete terms, when you look at the whole picture, young people aged 18 to 30 in Holland currently take less drugs than do young people in the United States. It seems to me that such data is important.

In international fora, does Canada remind the United States of something as fundamental as this?

Mr. Terry Cormier: In my opinion, Dutch demographics are convincing. They show that drug consumption at every age is much lower—not just a bit lower—but much lower than in countries that impose very harsh sanctions resulting in incarceration, with the substantial costs this approach entails to society.

You have no doubt had occasion to look at the statistics from the Netherlands. Their experience on the matter that you have raised is convincing, namely, that we cannot argue that the system has a great deal of influence on the consumption rates of the substances in question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What I am trying to understand is that according to what you told us, Canada plays a leadership role in various multilateral fora and we are very active in various assessment mechanisms. We even obtained documents that you may have read. If not, the clerk could forward them to you.

When Canada attends an international forum with the United States, does it maintain this position, namely that prohibitionist strategies do not result in lower consumption rates?

At the departmental level, at the level where policies are made and orders given, let's say, for example, at the level of the very charming and endearing minister of Foreign Affairs, one of the most liberal members of the caucus, as I've been told—because you are an official from Foreign Affairs—have you been told to say this or is this the position being taken in international fora?

Mr. Terry Cormier: Yes, the matter is being discussed at the international level. Our government's policy on drugs is that we must take a balanced approach. Our approach must deal with the prohibition of substances in society but it must also consider demand, treatment, and all of the other factors.

So our position is clearly expressed in international fora and we never miss an opportunity to broach the issue.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a final question and then I will turn the floor over to another colleague.

Do you have a position on this matter? Canada's Drug Strategy has gone through two phases. First of all, there was the period under the Conservatives up until 1993 and then the strategy was renewed; we were told that we had $210 million.

As regards information that you could bring to our attention, in conjunction with your department's knowledge, what kind of evaluation has been made? Have you examined the progress achieved under the strategy, in terms of both national and international results?

º (1645)

Mr. Terry Cormier: I cannot really speak to you about national trends. I am sorry, but this is not at all my area of expertise.

From an international perspective, as I said at the beginning, we cannot be overjoyed about the progress achieved. It depends on the way the results are measured. What are your expectations? A complete end to the consumption of certain substances in society? If this is your goal, obviously it would seem to be unrealistic.

In my estimation, it's important for all of us to try, within the broadest possible context, to minimize and reduce the harm that drugs represent to society, whether it be in terms of health problems, economic woes or crime levels associated with drug addiction. Without a doubt, all of these problems represent a policy challenge for the government.

From an international standpoint, I can't say that a great deal has been accomplished. Obviously, we can't say the problem has been resolved. Quite frankly, I don't think we will ever resolve the problem completely.

Our society has long been grappling with the issue of drug use. Trends have changed, but I do not hold out much hope that our society will one day be free of such substances as alcohol, tobacco or illicit drugs.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I hope I can count on you to provide our witness with the briefs by Ms. Beauchesne and other academics who have interpreted our obligations with a regard to international law.

The problem with this debate is that by remaining on a very general level, the committee will obviously find it difficult to draw very specific conclusions or make specific recommendations.

I'd like to thank the witness for answering my questions.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

Mr. Cormier, you talked about Canada's international commitments under treaties and conventions. You referred as well to the current Government of Canada policy, or at least the articulated policy as expressed internationally. Our job here is to assist our colleagues in the House to inform the policy of the Government of Canada on the subject matter of these hearings. I'd like to think we have a reasonable amount of elbow room in which to operate, but references have been made here and earlier in our hearings to the restraints or constraints imposed by existing international conventions. I wanted to touch on that a little bit, because I think my colleagues are probably going to want to max out the elbow room here. If the Government of Canada made commitments internationally some years ago, that's all fine and well. If they didn't take the time to inform the House or to get the House to ratify them, which they do not do as a matter of course, maybe that's their problem. We have to do our job here as legislators .

I want to hit on this issue of prohibited drugs in the international conventions. Can you tell me why a particular drug is prohibited in the conventions and how it becomes prohibited?

Mr. Terry Cormier: I can give you a very quick idea that I trust is accurate. Conventions control many different substances, as I mentioned, hundreds of them. These schedules change all the time. New substances are created, and they get added to the schedules depending on the level of control. As I indicated, the World Health Organization has a role to play in making recommendations with regard to where drugs should be scheduled. That is basically the process. The World Health Organization makes recommendations to the UN agencies on the basis of requests from states to have new substances added to lists or to change lists. As you're aware, one of the recommendations from the U.K. study was that the U.K. government look at advocating a change in where cannabis is scheduled in the UN conventions. So that is the process as I understand it.

There is that opportunity for us to engage in a debate on it with our partners. There are many other partners that would want to have such a debate, and there are others that would have a very negative reaction to it. This is not necessarily an issue that is seen universally as one in which one should move to liberalize trade in these kinds of substances. Many states would take a negative view of it. That's the international reality. That's the one we have to live with and the environment in which we have to operate.

This is a domestic issue. Clearly, we're a sovereign nation, and we have considerable room with what international conventions we are a party to. We have considerable room to move, and I don't think anybody doubts that for an instant. I think the challenge is in appreciating that this is not just a domestic issue, that there are international connections and global implications to it, and that we have to be cognizant of the changing international environment and the architecture and structure that exist so far.

º (1650)

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chair, we're going to need some clarity on the elbow room available to Canada under these conventions. I'd like to know who's giving the opinion. I realize that the ministry Mr. Cormier works with and for has a legal department that provides them with legal advice, and we're not going to change that today. It is what it is, and it's probably good legal advice.

If a substance is prohibited in the conventions, does that mean it can be had or seen nowhere at no time--you can't see it, you can't hear it, it doesn't exist, don't talk to us about it?

Mr. Terry Cormier: No, of course not.

Mr. Derek Lee: What does prohibition mean?

Mr. Terry Cormier: It includes the whole range of pharmaceuticals, for instance. They capture the psychotropic substances, the whole range of drugs that are mood-altering or affect motor behaviour or nervous system behaviour. So it's hundreds of drugs

Mr. Derek Lee: So prohibited doesn't really mean prohibition, it just means controlled. There has to be some regulation going on here.

Mr. Terry Cormier: That's correct, and the schedules can also differentiate between classes of drugs.

Mr. Derek Lee: One or more of our international partners in these conventions organized a controlled medical distribution of heroin to hard-core, long-term heroin addicts. Based on what you know about the conventions and the prohibitions, is that type of medical response to heroin addiction consistent with the conventions, or are they perhaps operating just outside the edges of what people think is legal?

Mr. Terry Cormier: It's a very specific question, but let me try to come at it a little more generally first. I think one has to define what is one's objective here. The reduction of harm to society is clearly an important objective. The distribution of medical heroin, safe injection sites for intravenous drug users, and needle exchange programs are sometimes discussed in international fora. In my view, my understanding of the conventions, we would have considerable latitude in having a controlled medical distribution of heroin for hard-core addicts. The U.K. has such a program. In the U.K. hard-core heroin addicts are able to obtain heroin under medical prescription and have been for quite a while. So I think there are possible avenues, in my understanding of the conventions and the legal requirements under them. If that's not the case, I'll say so when I reply to your previous question.

º (1655)

Mr. Derek Lee: The issue of how we deal with marijuana is also there. Marijuana is criminalized here, it's not controlled--well, I shouldn't say it's totally criminalized, because now one is able to be in possession of marijuana for a medical purpose. The medical purpose is not fully defined yet, but at least the criminal law acknowledges that, the courts acknowledge that. From your point of view, that of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that degree of the recognition of the use of marijuana in that small area, must be consistent with the conventions. Has there been any suggestion that it is not?

Mr. Terry Cormier: No, there has been no suggestion that it is not. There may be a suggestion that it is not, but it certainly is not our interpretation that it is not. The conventions explictly recognize domestic law and domestic human rights considerations, and the Parker case was won on those kinds of grounds. So the conventions explicitly recognize domestic circumstances.

Mr. Derek Lee: A lot of our convention partners in the developed world are trying to find ways to respond humanely to the drug problems we all have in our societies. In your experience in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have you come across an instance of a party to a convention responding in this envelope to harm reduction initiatives in member countries by saying, you can't do that, that's a trade issue? We're going to have to react to your brazen rewriting of your drug laws by a trade response. You guys aren't playing by the rules, and we're going to have to respond internationally. Have you seen a response like that?

» (1700)

Mr. Terry Cormier: I personally have not seen a response like that. I'm sure sometimes the experiences of some people could lead them to believe that is a message they're getting from certain parties in certain jurisdictions. As I said, the context and the discussions in all our countries are varied; various voices are being heard on these kinds of issues. I've no doubt that there would be a great deal of concern expressed in the United States of America if we were to move on our drug laws. At the same time, I have no doubt that there would be a considerable number of voices in the United States that would welcome a more open approach to dealing with the issue. The discussion is going on in various states in the United States.

It will require very careful management, and it would be very much incumbent upon us that anything we do not be seen to create a negative impact for them, whatever their perception of that negative impact might be. I would certainly hope that it would be quite easy and possible to do that without too much difficulty if the government were to move in this area.

Mr. Derek Lee: This question is right off the wall. Is there anything out there we might have overlooked in any of our trade agreements with any country that might affect changes to our domestic drug control policy? Is there a clause buried in the North American Free Trade Agreement? Is there one dealing with tariffs somewhere? Are our trade agreements with Brazil--

Mr. Terry Cormier: There may well be, Mr. Lee, but I'm not aware of one. There may be legislation that would complicate things, depending on what one was thinking about doing. It could possibly be, I don't know. I'm not aware of any significant impediment from a trade perspective.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's what I was looking for. You're not aware of any, and I'm not either. I was just fishing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

The fishing reference is no doubt a reference to all the Atlantic people who are around the table.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I don't have any questions.

The Chair: Mr. Cormier, you've spent some time with the committee members discussing the perception issue. When we met with some American legislators, their approach was that the problem was all ours, particularly in British Columbia with the marijuana issue. There was no realization that cocaine is coming into Canada and that other substances are more their problem and are causing us more grief than any of our problems are causing them. Beyond some of these fora you work within, are there ways we can help get that message out? It's not to say, the whole problem is your problem, it is to say, let's be realistic. We have our set of challenges and you have your set of challenges. Yes, we may have identified a product called B.C. Bud, which has a pretty nice market in the U.S., but there are all kinds of ditch weed and other hydroponic operations in the United States, you're just not talking about them. I wish our guys could market softwood lumber as well as they can market B.C. Bud.

There needs to be a realization that there are joint challenges here. Without that realization, should we make any changes and do some things similar to the Europeans, we could be faced with aggravation from some of the more vocal legislators on these issues.

Mr. Terry Cormier: I think that's a very important issue, and clearly it's one we need to be thinking about quite hard. We have been trying to find ways in bilateral mechanisms to have at least a clearer understanding of what the full range of the situation is. In the context of the Cross-border Crime Forum, which the Solicitor General chairs with the United States Attorney General, a year ago we undertook a study of the two-way trade in drugs between Canada and the United States. It elucidates the points you're making with the fact that this is a two-way problem.

The total provision of B.C.-grown marijuana, with all due respect to Mr. White and the talents of British Columbians, is, I think, a bit of a myth. It is an infinitesimally small part of the total consumption of cannabis in the United States of America. It is a very substantial crop in many different parts of the United States, as it is in many parts of Canada, including our cities. It is very prevalent. The reality is that B.C. hydroponically grown marijuana is a very small part of the total consumption of cannabis in the United States of America.

It is important for us to understand these issues in a bilateral context. It is critical, I think, that anything we do not have a negative impact on the United States and that we have those kinds of discussions. There are lots of ways in which we could be cooperating. As I said, the Americans, in my view, have some of the best statistics for consumption patterns, and they have put some serious money into it. Clearly, there is a need for additional research in monitoring the consumption of these kinds of substances by our societies, and there are certainly cooperative measures we should be taking there. It is a matter of engaging them and understanding the problem as commonly as possible together, respecting the fact that we're sovereign nations. While we share many values, we have different approaches in some areas that we respect, and some of them are in the criminal justice area.

The Chair: The other thing that has been interesting from our travels concerns Europe. You talked about the various existing treaties we are signatories to, and in Canada we like to work within that multilateral environment. Some of those agreements remain at a different time with different understandings, and the influencers are different countries at different times. In Europe, on more than one occasion, people encouraged us to do the right thing for Canadians, even if it would, at this point in time, not be seen as necessary by some Americans. We acknowledge that some Americans are not 100% in agreement on these issues, because they have already moved and have been pushing these agreements. They are hoping we will also help to push the international community.

With the evolution of some of these agreements, are you seeing different initiatives we shouldn't be so nervous about, because if we become part of some of those initiatives that are already taking place in Europe, the Americans or the other few countries would be almost isolated in respect of those agreements?

» (1705)

Mr. Terry Cormier: You are aware of the measures a number of countries have taken in the past year or two years. You are aware of what the U.K. is up to and what Belgium has done--Belgium very significantly liberalized within the past year and a half or so--the measures in Switzerland and the draft legislation it had. I don't know the exact status today, but this draft legislation went very far and essentially legalized certain substances.

The Chair: And Spain and Portugal, apparently.

Mr. Terry Cormier: Portugal made a measure last year. It was a very innovative approach, in which individuals who were picked up on some sort of drug offence would be immediately diverted to rehabilitation and to health care. It is a health approach to the issue in society, not a criminal justice approach. So there is clearly a change in the kind of context.

You are right that when these conventions are created, the evolution of the international architecture changes. It's a political issue, and laws change. You don't have to look far in regard to substance abuse. You just have to think about the prohibition period as a bit of a parallel or as an example. However, laws change with respect to the approaches we take on broad social policy issues. The international architecture is also able to respond to that. It doesn't clearly lock us into something very restrictive for all time. These are the creatures of sovereign states that are trying to solve problems they share. I think that's the way it's looked upon by the international community.

The Chair: The other surprising thing we heard when we were in the United States--and someone mentioned it here--was whether we had any successes. They were, as I understand it, quite successful in shutting down the importation of cocaine, but that created a separate problem, and that was crystal meth, which is a home-grown industry with varying degrees of perfection that has, for users of those substances, more devastating consequences.

Are there other examples we should be aware of internationally where you tackle one issue that you think is so important, but then create almost a worse situation? It really is a worse situation with the rehabilitation of people who are using crystal meth than with cocaine. Apparently, to go by some of the medical community, it's much harder to deal with. When they stopped the importation and availability of cocaine, it was replaced by something else. Are you aware of other products, substances, or situations in the world we should be thinking about?

Mr. Terry Cormier: I'm afraid I'm not an expert at all in this kind of area and I really have no particular perspective, other than to believe the technologies are what drive some of this quite a bit, the availability of hydroponic technology to grow cannabis, for instance, and the availability of technology to produce amphetamine-type drugs in very small quantities, in small labs, with an increasingly limited amount of scientific knowledge--you can download the recipes from the Internet, thank you very much. I would anticipate that this kind of trend will continue, that the technologies will get increasingly sophisticated, and this will be an additional challenge for our societies in dealing with these kinds of substances.

The Chair: That's interesting, because if we never deal with the demand side, we will never get anywhere, as you said, as there will always be something to replace, there will always be the ability for people to produce in their own bathtubs or wherever personal supplies, because of the information age.

» (1710)

Mr. Terry Cormier: We have dealt with the demand question with respect to certain substances, as I have mentioned. I think, with respect to tobacco and alcohol again, one should acknowledge that very significant progress has been made in the way society deals with these two particular substances. It's not beyond me to think we can have a similar kind of impact through educational campaigns with respect to other substances.

The Chair: It's ironic, because of course, if you take heroin versus alcohol, alcohol wreaks more havoc in our communities than heroin does.

Mr. Terry Cormier: Of course it does.

The Chair: I am not sure our success on those two products is all there, but certainly, as a society, we are much more aware and people are making much more informed choices, so that's good.

Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: On the subject of the ongoing organized crime criminal conspiracies in which we are awash with the illegal drug trade--most of it is organized crime, as I understand it. You might want to confirm that from your perspective at Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mr. Terry Cormier: I think the RCMP would tell you that very clearly. Its publicly available reports clearly demonstrate that particularly the motorcycle biker gangs are very heavily involved in the trade in cannabis. It's obvious that when you have an illegal substance that is being consumed by such a large percentage of your population and the profits are so astronomically high, criminal elements will move in to make a profit, as they would in any other kind of activity that is illegal. Their objective is to make a dollar. The fact is that criminal gangs are very heavily involved in the distribution of drugs in this country.

Mr. Derek Lee: And internationally and globally.

Mr. Terry Cormier: And internationally, yes, of course.

Mr. Derek Lee: I haven't heard much come forward in our hearings that would suggest we should change any or very much of the law and policy pertaining to the organized criminal distribution and trade in the large quantities of drugs.

From your perspective at Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is the envelope evolving as it should in respect of our participation? Are we playing a fair role? Are we making a fair contribution internationally? As a country, are we pulling our load?

Mr. Terry Cormier: Are we pulling our load internationally on this issue? I think there is no question that we are. I think the experience alone of what Canada is doing in the Organization of American States in broadening the discussion and debate that is taking place in that context shows that we are playing an important role there.

Do I think there are other steps Canada should be taking to crack down on the international criminal gangs that operate the drug trade? Yes, of course I do. I believe strongly that to gain money through the misery of people is very wrong and we have a responsibility to discourage it.

Mr. Derek Lee: Are you suggesting more resources, different strategies, or both?

Mr. Terry Cormier: I'm not suggesting additional resources at this particular time. I'm suggesting that we need to pay particular attention to people who would profit through the trade in substances like cocaine, heroin, amphetamine-type drugs, and cannabis and gain an awful lot of money out of this trade. As you know, it's an enormously profitable enterprise in this country.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier. We really appreciate the time you have taken to come and meet with us and discuss these issues. On behalf of all the committee members, thank you for the work you do every day in representing all Canadians. We know sometimes people don't know about all that work, so it's been good to get updated on the things you do and the great team behind you. Keep up the good work.

Mr. Terry Cormier: With respect to our international drug policy, I would be happy to respond in writing to the number of questions that have been put to us.

Good luck in the work of your committee. It's clearly a very important social issue for our citizens, and there are many dimensions to it.

» (1715)

The Chair: If you find a magic wand in the next little while, do let us know.

Thank you colleagues. I'll adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning.