EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 11, 1997

.0913

[English]

The Chairman: We are running just a little bit late, so we'd like to get started.

It being the first meeting since the House came back, I'd like to welcome members and staff, and in particular Odette, who has been away for a while on other business.

Ms Odette Madore (Committee Researcher): Yes.

The Chairman: She has a one-year-old boy to prove it. Congratulations to her from the committee.

First of all this morning we're going to hear some witnesses from the Association to Reduce Alcohol Promotion in Ontario.

Simone, welcome. If you would just tell us who's with you and make a brief opening statement if you have one, then we want to ask you some questions.

Ms Simone Cusenza (Coordinator, Association to Reduce Alcohol Promotion in Ontario): Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Simone Cusenza and I am representing the Association to Reduce Alcohol Promotion in Ontario. With me are two ARAPO members, Mary Tabak from the Halton Regional Health Department and Nadia Peric from Iroquois Regional Secondary School in Oakville. Together we're going to present to you for less than 10 minutes. Because of Nadia's commitment to alcohol issues, we raised the money for her to make this trip and we're very pleased to be able to include a youth perspective.

I'd like to take a few minutes to focus on the important role of the federal government in the regulation of alcohol advertising on television and radio. The opportunity to speak with you today is timely because a number of important changes are taking place right now that raise a number of critical issues.

ARAPO, the Association to Reduce Alcohol Promotion in Ontario, is a community-based, Ontario-wide association of concerned citizens, community action groups, and substance abuse prevention organizations. We believe responsible alcohol advertising allows people to make wiser choices about drinking, especially youth. We do not advocate for a ban on alcohol advertising but do support strong regulatory controls.

.0915

As you know, alcohol advertising on radio and television is governed federally by the Broadcasting Act and the code for broadcast advertising of alcoholic beverages. The Broadcasting Act directs that commercial messages must not promote the general consumption of alcohol, but does allow brand advertising. The code then further requires that ads must not, among other things, influence non-drinkers to drink, target people under the legal drinking age, and so on. The code is fairly comprehensive, but its effectiveness depends on how it is interpreted, applied, and enforced.

The CRTC administers and enforces the Broadcasting Act and code. In 1995 and again in 1996 the CRTC proposed to make a number of major changes to the way it regulates alcohol advertising, including eliminating the pre-clearance of alcohol ads. This pre-approval function was until recently performed by a review committee, and it served to prevent ads that target youths or promote irresponsible drinking from being broadcast, for example. ARAPO believes that due to alcohol's special nature, pre-clearance should remain the responsibility of the CRTC, it must be mandatory, and it must involve people with a substance abuse prevention perspective.

Through freedom of information, ARAPO received parts of an internal CRTC document summarizing the public's response to the proposed changes. ARAPO's position was clearly that of the majority. The document noted that of the 233 responses received, 93% felt that the strict regulation of alcohol ads is vital. The majority of these strongly opposed the transfer of the pre-clearance process to the Canadian Advertising Foundation, because of the enormous health and social costs associated with alcohol-related problems.

Despite this opposition, as of February 1, 1997, the CRTC no longer requires that ads be reviewed and approved prior to broadcast. In their announcement, the CRTC noted that the Canadian Advertising Foundation, the trade association of advertisers, has offered to pre-clear ads, but a number of questions remain unanswered. Will advertisers submit their ads to the CAF? Is it optional? Who will review the ads at the CAF; will it be one person, a staff person, or a committee that includes a substance abuse prevention perspective? Who is going to monitor what is being broadcast on TV and radio? How will the public's complaints be handled? Who do we complain to? How will the CRTC enforce the alcohol advertising law? Will the CRTC be indifferent to public input in the future?

These questions are even more important now that anyone may advertise the sale of alcohol on TV and radio, including retail outlets, local alcohol delivery services, bars, and restaurants. Prior to February 1, the Broadcasting Act permitted only manufacturers to advertise the sale of alcohol. In Ontario the Liquor Control Board continues to pre-approve ads, but for some provinces the CRTC plays a unique role in ensuring that only alcohol advertising that complies with the code reaches the public.

In conclusion, our children have to be our top priority when we're considering the most effective way to regulate alcohol advertising. I'm afraid the CRTC's effectiveness will be hampered by their decision not to pre-clear ads and by the volume of ads, which will surely increase over the next few years. But of greatest importance is filling the vacuum left by the CRTC's recent decisions with answers to the questions posed today. Thank you.

Ms Mary Tabak (Public Health Nurse, Halton Regional Health Department, Substance Abuse Prevention Program): Good morning. My name is Mary Tabak and I'm a public health nurse with the Halton Regional Health Department in the substance abuse prevention program. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

The goals of the health department include working with communities to reduce abuse of alcohol and other drugs, thereby reducing the health and social and economic costs associated with substance use and abuse. We do this by involving people in the issues that affect them.

As you're aware, alcohol and youth are a deadly combination. This morning I'd like to discuss the impact of alcohol advertising on youth and the value of involving them in this important issue.

Included in your folders is a copy of a study by Joel Grube, ``The Effects of Television Advertising on Adolescent Drinking''. This study demonstrates that there is a relationship between alcohol advertising on TV and adolescent drinking. It also asserts that prevention efforts should focus some attention on reducing exposure to alcohol advertising among youth.

.0920

While much more research needs to be done, I believe we are right to be cautious about alcohol advertising. The young people I work with at Iroquois Ridge High School have identified alcohol advertising as a factor influencing their peers' attitudes and choices about alcohol. Youth say they feel bombarded with ads on TV, radio, billboards, sponsored events such as concerts and sporting events, and even the Internet. They can even describe the ones they like best. For many youths these advertisements depict extremely appealing situations and of course situations without consequence.

The youth I work with have actively supported ARAPO's efforts to promote responsible advertising of alcohol and to maintain strong regulatory controls, as Nadia will tell you. The Halton Regional Health Department also supports ARAPO's position on alcohol advertising. We hope the federal government will continue to show strong leadership so that only the most responsible alcohol advertising is broadcast on television and radio.

I believe that alcohol advertising does affect youths' attitudes and choices about alcohol. I believe that the strict regulation of alcohol advertising is one concrete strategy that has an impact. And I believe that youth should be involved in the issues that affect their health.

Thank you.

Ms Nadia Peric (Student, Iroquois Ridge High School): Good morning. I'm very happy to be here today. I'm an OAC student at Iroquois Ridge High School in Oakville, and I strongly believe that youth need a voice in issues like substance use and abuse.

Through my five years of high school, and even before that, I've witnessed many incidents with my friends and many strangers concerning their abuse and use of alcohol and their suffering as a consequence. As I see it, the party scene on the commercials with the fun, with the music, with attractive-looking people, with the loud, great music has a tremendous effect on youth, as do many sponsored concerts and sporting events.

My friend James and I presented at Queen's Park last summer on alcohol advertising. James mentioned that when he was younger he would beg his father to go out and buy 24-packs of beer just to get the free CDs inside. He did that for a long time.

If it's apparent to us that alcohol will raise our level of enjoyment, we will do it. Sadly, the consequences are rarely shown on TV, magazines, newspapers or the Internet.

Frankly, in my opinion, the regulations are not strict enough.

I work with a group at my school called Iroquois Against Drugs and Drunk Driving. We are a group of students committed to promoting a healthy, drug-free lifestyle within our school. As youths we feel that we have an influence on decisions made within our community as well as a voice that needs to be heard.

We have demonstrated our commitment to challenge alcohol advertising by working with ARAPO and the health department to coordinate a press conference last October, the purpose of which was to raise awareness about alcohol advertising and its effect on youth. The press conference gave us a great opportunity to express our feelings and views on alcohol and adverting and its impact on us. There were over 100 youth there, the local mayor, school and health personnel, three different newspapers and a radio station. This is what keeps us going, the fact that there's someone there to help us to make a change for the better.

During the last three years I've learned more about alcohol advertising and therefore I've been paying more attention to it. The amount of temptation and appeal that's out there and that has been out there for a really long time is very surprising to me. When I begin university next year, I plan to take child studies to become a teacher. And I do think that once I do achieve this, it's my duty as a responsible adult and as a teacher to guide our children in the right direction, because they are our future. If there are stricter regulations that can be implemented for alcohol advertising then I definitely think it's worth it.

Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

First of all, from the Bloc we have Pierre de Savoye.

.0925

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I want to thank Ms Cusenza, Ms Peric and Ms Tabak for their testimony during which they voiced their concern about alcohol promotion. Theirs is a legitimate concern. Young people are clearly much more sensitive than adults to the manner in which alcohol is promoted in society.

Are you in favour of complete abstinence, or are you in favour of moderation, that is the reasonable, informed consumption of alcohol? Where do you stand on this issue?

[English]

Ms Cusenza: Our position with respect to drinking is certainly not one of temperance; it's that it's a legal product in our society and people need the information to help them make wise and informed decisions. Nor do we advocate a ban on alcohol advertising, but we believe that responsible alcohol advertising that complies very strictly with the spirit of our code will help people make informed decisions.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: If I understand you correctly, you view advertising as one way of educating people about the reasonable, and informed consumption of alcohol.

[English]

Ms Cusenza: Yes, in the sense that the promotion of alcohol as a product is a form of advertising. We certainly know that advertising is influential, that it provides people with information about products, it's an important way people, especially youth, might become socialized about a product or an issue. So in that respect it does play a role, and it has to be part of a comprehensive policy around alcohol.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Have you had an opportunity to gauge, either by way of a survey or some other means, the impact of alcohol advertising on young people in your community? Do you have any specific data which would enlighten our committee about the effects that you have observed?

[English]

Ms Cusenza: Specifically with regard to the impact of alcohol advertising?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Yes.

[English]

Ms Cusenza: Certainly I've never done that first-hand and I have to rely on studies that are produced by researchers and scientists external to my association. Mary did refer to one study by Professor Grube in the United States, and certainly there is a growing body of research that does indicate there is an association between young people's affinity or liking for commercials and their attitude and choices about drinking. The research is not as absolutely solid as I would like to be able to say right now it is, but there are indications that for us demonstrate a need to be cautious.

.0930

I can refer to a comment in the CRTC document, that a number of studies conducted on the effects of alcoholic beverage advertising do show evidence that alcoholic beverage advertising affects attitudes and expectations about alcohol for young people who have not yet used alcohol and that increasing levels of advertising can result in modest increases in alcohol consumption in the population at large and can increase alcohol-related problems.

Again on a number of fronts we do see some research that indicates a need for caution and definitely a need to fund more research in the future. Some of the research has been done at the federal level in the past, and it would be great to see some support for that kind of research again in the future.

The Chairman: Andy Scott.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask your advice on illicit drugs. One of the things we've been asked to look at is the approach that the Government of Canada takes with what are considered illegal drugs. There seem to be two ways in which this is approached.

Some countries and jurisdictions see the best way to discourage people from using illegal drugs is through the criminal justice system and by taking a very hard approach. Other jurisdictions view it as basically a medical problem, and they deal with it in a different way. Can you tell us what your view of this is? Do we cause fewer kids to consume marijuana by making the penalties harsher, or do we cause fewer kids to consume marijuana by making them more aware of whatever risks are associated with the consumption of marijuana? What's the role of the government and the best approach?

Ms Tabak: I believe a comprehensive approach is the best approach to any of these issues, one that includes enforcement, justice, and treatment. Prevention, I think, is mainly the key and an area in which there can be growth. We do work in the elementary and secondary schools, where most of the drug use will start. Whether those people will carry on and have it become a problem later in life...it generally starts in our schools, and I believe we need to see more prevention efforts targeted at our youth.

Ms Peric: I would like to add to that. I think what Mary was saying about prevention is very important. Pressure - no matter what kind of pressure, including peer pressure - exists in schools. If students are more aware of what's going on and what's going to happen to them, if they know what drugs they're using and what it's going to do to them, there's a bigger chance they are going to stay away from it. I think just letting them deal with the consequences once they do it is something that has to happen, but I think the prevention part of it is a lot more important.

Ms Cusenza: I can only echo those sentiments. ARAPO works with the Black Creek focus project in the Jane-Finch community of Metropolitan Toronto. Certainly we see a great need for prevention and community development. What we're faced with right now, though, is that it's hard to prove to you that prevention works. It's hard to give you statistics that identify how many children we've prevented from turning to drugs or how many parents we've encouraged and given skills to help their children. Funding is at risk, and we're constantly defending prevention as the best method. Again, we've seen it work and we certainly believe it works.

The Chairman: Paul Szabo and Herb Dhaliwal, in that order.

Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take much time.

I want to thank ARAPO for coming. I'm familiar with a lot of the work. I know that you've been very proactive in substance abuse issues. I'm very pleased that you emphasize prevention. I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, when we started on this health committee, one of the things that health officials told us was that a very significant portion of health resources were at the curative and remedial levels, so very few, maybe less than a quarter, of our resources went towards prevention. We can't sustain the curative or remedial strategy, which means there must be a greater emphasis on prevention. I thank you for emphasizing that. I think it's key.

.0935

In the line of prevention, I would like to ask you whether ARAPO has a position on health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages.

Ms Cusenza: When the private member's bill was before Parliament, we did write a letter in support of warning labels, again as part of a comprehensive strategy that the federal government can have about alcohol. We definitely emphasize the need to do research on the design of the labels, the content of the messages, and the position of the labels on the bottles, but it's an important educational and symbolic measure that the federal government can undertake.

Again, I've heard the criticism that people who buy alcohol regularly may be oblivious to the message, but what about the young drinkers or the youth, who are under age but get their hands on a bottle of alcohol illegally? Perhaps that message right there on the bottle would have an impact.

I do have copies of that letter, if anybody's interested. We did support it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Harb.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Let me also thank you for the excellent presentation you brought forward today. I'd like to ask you particularly whether, in your view, the existing programs we have are making improvements out there where alcohol is concerned.

Is the problem of alcohol abuse increasing or decreasing? What do you think the existing programs fail to do in reducing the number of people who abuse alcohol?

Another question is whether we should have a strategy that emphasizes that people shouldn't drink alcohol at all or whether we emphasize there should be responsible use of alcohol.

Any of the members could respond to that.

Ms Cusenza: In terms of some Ontario statistics, I'm sure you've heard from a couple of other presenters about the economic cost of alcohol use and abuse across Canada. I'll add just one or two figures to that.

The percentage of high school students who drink alcohol increased from 56.5% in 1993 to 58.8% in 1995. This is the first rise in the rate of drinking since 1979. This statistic is from Ontario Profile 1996: Alcohol and Other Drugs.

Nine out of ten Ontario university students were current drinkers according to a 1993 survey. The majority of students drank between one and 14 drinks a week. In 1994, 86% of young adults 18 to 29 were current drinkers and were also more likely to be heavy drinkers.

I think we're seeing an upward trend in drinking among our young people and in risky drinking behaviours. This indicates there's a need to address the problem.

Ms Tabak: You asked earlier what we can do for support. You said we've already tried some things and asked whether they were working or not.

I think the board of education curricula give the information. I think other programs are out there that give information to students. I think they need some support in getting that information.

When they're faced with a situation, information alone sometimes is not enough. They need skill-building. They need the support of adults, a supportive community that supports non-use and doesn't give mixed messages.

I think the other thing that youth need is accessible leisure activities, accessible things to do on their time off that will get them involved in some other things.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have one more quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Is there a relationship between parents drinking and their kids drinking? Is there a correlation in that if their parents drink, they also drink? I wonder whether there have been any studies on that correlation.

Ms Tabak: I didn't come prepared to speak about that, but there are some correlations between role-modelling at home and even role-modelling by other important adults in a child's life, such as teachers, and the behaviour of a child.

.0940

Mr. Dhaliwal: There's no study you know of that particularly looks at the role of parents and drinking, is there?

Ms Cusenza: If we could get a mailing address for you, we could certainly check with our members....

You also asked whether we supported a non-drinking society. Again, that is not our position. We are looking for every possible option to encourage people to make wise and informed choices about drinking, and that will range from responsible drinking to abstinence. That has to be a personal choice.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: She wants your address, Harb.

Ms Cusenza: I do. Thank you.

The Chairman: Joe.

Mr. Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies.

I'm intrigued by this concept of responsible drinking and the alternative, abstinence. You just said, citing Ontario statistics, that something like 58% of young people were drinkers. You identified drinkers as those who had between 1 and 14 drinks per week. Did I recall that correctly?

Ms Cusenza: Yes, it was 94.4% of university students.

Mr. Volpe: University students are adults -

Ms Cusenza: Yes.

Mr. Volpe: - and one to 14 drinks comes out to roughly one or two drinks per day. Maybe we ought to establish whether you have the same definition for drink as I have: drink is one ounce of alcohol, a glass of wine, or a bottle of beer. In your estimation, is that moderate?

Ms Cusenza: Yes, it certainly could be moderate, depending on the number of drinks on any given day. The guidelines on what responsible drinking is range, depending on your source of information. Certainly 14 drinks consumed over two days would be immoderate and perhaps a dangerous pattern. That figure is meaningful to me because it indicates that by the time people are in university, the majority of them have begun to drink and the pattern has been established.

I'm going to see whether there are figures that give more information about the risky drinking patterns that are emerging. As well, 14 drinks a week is high. It would be perhaps two or three drinks a day, three or four times a week, so that's pushing the limit towards risky drinking. If a member of my family consumed 14 drinks a week, I would be concerned and aware of that drinking pattern.

Ms Tabak: Much of our work with the youth includes binge drinking. We know that injury is the number one killer of our youth aged from 16 to 24. Many times it's alcohol-related injury, so we tend to focus on binge drinking. There are statistics to support the amount of binge drinking that happens throughout high school and well into university.

Mr. Volpe: I'd be interested in seeing some of those statistics. I was looking across the table at some of my friends from the other side who probably have a culture in which drinking with meals is captured by the figures you gave.

It would not be excessive for young men and women who are at university to sit down at a table with a glass of wine. There's your one drink seven times a week; it's only seven meals. If they have 14 meals, they've been captured by those statistics and probably wouldn't be considered drinkers; that's just part of the meal. You've moved it to binge drinking.

If you could provide this committee with some figures in that regard, at least this member would feel a little more instructed. I'll tell you why. I think much of the information we get, valuable as it is, is anecdotal. Unfortunately, I answered a question like this at a university pre-medical examination for one of the school teams. When I answered the question and I fit into that category, the doctor told me I was ruining my life - and I wasn't even French Canadian. If I wanted to do something like this, maybe once or twice a week.... Drinking would be okay, but it would allow my liver to process all the alcohol.

.0945

Have we got any information in that regard?

Ms Cusenza: We'll certainly have to pull that together.

Mr. Volpe: So binge drinking, in your mind, then, has consequences for any actions that follow immediately upon a binge, but may not necessarily have any medical consequences if the binge doesn't happen more than once a week.

Ms Cusenza: Oh, I certainly am not prepared whatsoever to comment on that.

Mr. Volpe: I didn't mean to lay a trap like that for you.

The Chairman: Now, before we finish, help me. You obviously have a full-time office for your association. Simone?

Ms Cusenza: We have existed since 1991 as a committee of the Black Creek focus community project, which is a community development initiative in Metro Toronto. And indeed, they have offices throughout Ontario.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms Cusenza: This year we've been fortunate in securing some extra funding to produce some educational materials so we've been able to beef up our efforts and our future remains to be seen.

We will continue to exist, though, in some way, shape or form as part of Black Creek focus.

The Chairman: So are you the full-time coordinator for the association?

Ms Cusenza: No, I'm not. I'm part-time until March 30 at which time, my contract expires.

The Chairman: Mary, what's your relationship? Are you a member of the association?

Ms Tabak: Yes.

The Chairman: You're not a staff person.

Ms Tabak: No.

The Chairman: Is it Nadine?

Ms Peric: Nadia.

The Chairman: Nadia. You're a member of the association.

Ms Peric: Yes, I've been working with ARAPO for about -

The Chairman: I just want to go to - your school - Iroquois, you say?

Ms Peric: Yes.

The Chairman: How many people at your school - students at your school are involved in - have an interest in this matter and formally involved in it?

Ms Peric: It's the IADDD, which is Iroquois Against Drugs and Drunk Driving. There's about 12 members and then we have a separate council, a wellness council, and there's about 15 members on that one. That just deals with the more health aspects other than drinking.

The Chairman: I guess my real question is: Is this a matter that many high school students have a preoccupation with or are you the exception?

Ms Cusenza: I've had a number of invitations this year to speak to groups of students in Halton, Oakville, Owen Sound, in high schools throughout North York. Indeed, it's a growing area of interest, especially among those students who have organized around drinking and driving and they're now exploring alcohol issues, taking it even further - their exploration. Indeed, they're all extremely alert and aware of alcohol advertising and give very thoughtful commentary. I see it as a growing area of interest.

The Chairman: Your answer.

Ms Peric: I've been part of conferences where I've spoken to high school students from different high schools, just telling them about what goes on in my high school and organizations. They all seem very interested. I think it's as Simone was saying; it's really growing and people are becoming more interested and concerned with it.

The Chairman: Thanks, all three of you, for coming. We enjoyed having you.

We invite to the table now representatives from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.

Now, this should be short and sweet, Jane, because you're new to us, but Eugene is here every other week, so unless he's got something new to say, I'm sure he's here as an observer.

Seriously, we don't want to set the precedent of.... We only have time to hear everybody once, so we don't want to set the precedent of hearing some people several times.

I understand Eugene is here with another organization since the last time around.

.0950

Mr. Eugene Oscappella (Member, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Whoever is charge down there, start talking. Introduce your colleagues, give us a statement, and give us some time to put a few questions to you, please.

Mr. Oscappella: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here in a different capacity, for the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. I am a former co-chair of the policy committee of that association. I'm joined by Jane Fjeld, who is a criminologist and one of the current co-chairs of the committee. I will present some of my personal views if I'm asked, but I'm here presenting the views of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. So although it may appear that I'm here to reiterate the issue, I'm merely presenting the position of the association.

Mr. Chairman, I also have a two-and-a-half-minute film clip, which the clerk has kindly agreed to set up in the VCR. I'd like to show that to the committee members first, with your permission. It's from The Nature of Things, the national CBC program run by David Suzuki.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Video Presentation]

Mr. Oscappella: If the members of this committee would prefer, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to make copies of the entire program available to them. I urge the members of this committee to see this program. It's probably one of the best documentaries on drug policy in this country to have come along since the last program The Nature of Things did five years ago.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association is 77 years old. It's the largest association of criminal justice professionals in Canada. It has correctional workers, parole officers, prison wardens, police officers, and criminologists among its members.

The Association does not support the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the philosophy behind it. It feels that the act simply perpetuates a policy of criminal prohibition that increases the level of violence in society. I have materials here from an American criminologist discussing how the illegal drug trade actually draws youth into it and is exacerbating the problem of guns among youth in society.

.0955

The present law results in the needless criminalization of tens of thousands of Canadians each year. Since I last appeared before this committee in October, almost four months ago, about 6,000 Canadians have been charged with possession of cannabis, based on 1995 extrapolations.

The current law results in the needless incarceration of thousands for drug offences they should not be incarcerated for. It fosters the spread of lethal blood-borne diseases, it imposes an enormous financial burden on Canadians, and it ignores a host of humane alternatives that can minimize the harm of drugs for users and society alike.

We urge this committee to look to the United States if they want to see an example of a failed policy of prohibition. The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration per capita in the industrial world. In recent years the exploding rate of incarceration in the United States has largely been driven by the imprisonment of drug offenders, yet drugs remain readily available in the United States, prices remain stable and in some cases have even dropped as they have in Canada, and people continue to use drugs in harmful ways. That is not evidence of the success of the criminal prohibition of drugs.

We therefore as an association urge this committee to examine in a truly non-partisan manner the many possible alternatives to the criminal prohibition of drugs.

If I might just make one final comment, at the last hearing when I did appear, after I had testified one of the members of the committee made the statement that I fail to have the guts to stand up and say exactly what I stand for. They said that what I stand for is to make drugs legal so everybody can have access to drugs. Mr. Chairman, that is not what I stand for. I have never advocated the legalization of drugs. I have advocated the search for intelligent alternatives to the criminal prohibition of drugs because the criminal prohibition of drugs is a colossal failure. I'm looking to reduce the harms associated with drugs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Pierre de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Oscappella and Ms Fjeld, we are accustomed to having you come before the committee to discuss drug-related issues. Your background material and arguments are always very interesting. I especially appreciated the video presentation.

This morning, you are here on behalf of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. Of course, this association views this issue as a legal rather than a health issue. I am trying to reconcile the vision of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and health- related concerns.

We might have expected an association like yours to call for the legislation to be enforced more stringently. However, this is not what I'm hearing from you. On the contrary, you're saying that we may not have the proper laws in place. Could you tell us how your association reconciles legal and health considerations?

Mr. Oscappella: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye. As usual, I will answer your question in English as this is easier for me.

[English]

It's very easy to reconcile health and criminal justice. We know that when people are in prison there's a very high risk of acquiring further infections. For example, we know that in the prison for women in Kingston about 40% of the women who agreed to be tested in one survey have tested positive for hepatitis C. We know prisons are high-risk environments for the transmission of HIV and hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Prisons are not healthy environments. Eventually these prisoners are going to be released into society, and that is going to be one of the vectors by which these conditions, HIV and hepatitis B and C, will spread into the general population. So there's that issue.

The Canadian Criminal Justice Association has almost always been opposed to the excessive use of the criminal law. There are appropriate circumstances for the criminal law to be used. I believe the association is questioning the use of the criminal law for dealing with drugs because of the many harms I was enumerating, as you heard earlier, again on behalf of the association. These happen to be my personal views as well, but they are the views of the policy committee of the Criminal Justice Association and the executive committee of the association.

.1000

Ms Jane Fjeld (Member, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): I wonder if I might be able to add something as well. As well as being the co-chair of this particular committee, I've also spent 15 years working in the field, including being the former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society, being a probation and parole officer, and currently I'm the director of an agency that provides clinical services to young offenders for the eastern region.

As part of this evolution of knowledge and this evolution of the debate around how best to deal with this very complex issue, myself as well as many of the members of this association have come to the very clear conclusion that this notion of punishment, incarceration, the heavy use of the law, although perhaps it's an emotional response to a very complex issue, is not yielding the results we need to see, both in the addiction issue specifically, but also in all the other very concrete criminal acting-out type of offending that goes on in relation to people who are addicted to various substances.

I think it's really in that vein that the association and its members are urging this committee as well as many other organizations to look at some of those alternatives that traditionally perhaps we've thought are too radical or don't quite fit with the cultural perspective that we've typically taken to the whole issue of addictions. So if I could maybe strengthen Eugene's point, it very much does come from this association that has many different members from different walks of the criminal justice field.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: You spoke of people who, because of their drug use, have many more health than legal problems. What is your view on the legal aspects of drug trafficking? This is a very different matter, in my opinion. Since you represent a criminal justice association, what is the position of your association with respect to drug trafficking? In your opinion, how should this matter be dealt with from a criminal perspective?

[English]

Mr. Oscappella: Mr. de Savoye, the association to my knowledge has not taken a position specifically with respect to the issue of the trafficking of drugs, but I think it's safe to say that it would want to look at the entire range of behaviours associated with drugs in society - possession, use, cultivation, import and export, trafficking - and look at the best mechanisms for reducing the harms to society posed by those activities.

In some cases it may be appropriate to use the criminal law. In other cases it may be wholly inappropriate and even counter-productive. So it's very difficult to say. I will leave it at that; I don't want to commit the association to more than it has said.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam?

[English]

Ms Fjeld: No, I think that answers the question, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul.

Mr. Szabo: There are a couple of aspects I'd like to ask questions about.

If someone is addicted to a drug, to your knowledge and your experience, is the probability of dealing with that addiction enhanced by a voluntary commitment of that person to the treatment? And how would that compare to someone who is forced to take some sort of treatment for their addiction?

Mr. Oscappella: Mr. Szabo, I don't think I'm qualified to address specific treatment issues, because I'm not a treatment expert, I'm a lawyer, and I look at this issue from a slightly different perspective. I don't believe the association has taken a position on that issue, but there certainly are people who have dealt with the issue.

Mr. Szabo: You're not aware of what the conventional wisdom is with regard to dealing with addiction?

Mr. Oscappella: I would be at risk of misinforming you if I were to speculate on that, so I won't try to do that.

Mr. Szabo: Okay.

.1005

Ms Fjeld: Maybe I'll try to misinform you, if I might, perhaps not so much on behalf of the association, but perhaps more just on a personal level. I'm now working at any given time with some 75 young offenders who come to what is largely seen as a voluntary organization for clinical services. The nature of volunteerism is, I think, very key, in that we know the treatment effect is greater to the larger extent a client feels some control over the intervention that's being offered to him or her.

I think it's safe to say that family members, school officials, and significant others in a person's life provide that kind of encouragement or coercive volunteerism to try to address whatever the youth's issue might be. Our experience has been that court-ordered treatment, or mandatory treatment, typically does not have a positive effect on treatment outcome.

Mr. Szabo: I find that interesting, the admission that.... No, I won't say it.

I will go to my second question, Mr. Chairman. The last time Mr. Oscappella was here, I did in fact say I wasn't sure where he was coming from and he didn't have the guts to tell us what he stood for. He's repeated again before this committee that he does not support the current state of drug law in Canada, which he refers to as the criminalization approach. He did state, however - and here's as far as Mr. Oscappella is prepared to go - that he is in favour of searching for alternatives. But note, Mr. Chairman, that he gave no suggestions of what alternatives. We're against something, but we're not for anything specifically.

I want to ask Jane, because Jane was prepared to indicate that she has something on her mind because she says it's time to look at some solutions that traditionally have been viewed to be radical. I would like to ask Jane if she would please advise the committee what radical solutions she was talking about that we should consider in dealing with the issue of drugs in Canada.

Ms Fjeld: I think there may be a range of options that could be looked at. To start off, I think it's clear the whole notion of research in addiction and what works best is really something that probably has only just started in the last 10 or 15 years to have the kind of meticulous methodology that can stand up to some rigorous analysis.

In many ways I think the addictions field is in its infancy, but I do think there is, internationally, some research that speaks to methadone maintenance programs that have been shown to be effective. I think we're looking at needing to look at some of the harm reduction programs out there that move addicts from one form of ingestion of drugs to another.

I'm not an expert in addictions, so I think there probably are others who have come before this committee who can speak to that. But maybe one of the more radical notions we really need to take to heart is the notion of not punishing the extent to which we do those who are addicted, and that includes how the criminal justice system deals with possession and use of and some of the mitigating circumstances whereby people find themselves before the courts.

Maybe I could leave it at that, which is we have an open mind and look at what's working out there. Perhaps Eugene would like to add something.

Mr. Oscappella: Yes, Mr. Szabo, I'd like to respond to your comment that I do not have alternatives. This is a binder full of about 400 pages of documentation dealing with alternatives.

When I appeared before the Senate committee last year, I helped develop a set of legislative proposals that would have amended Bill C-8. We actually drafted amendments to Bill C-8. Those amendments were put before you on October 22 when the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy appeared before you. We have a raft of material dealing with alternatives, sir. I can assure you we will be happy to explore those alternatives with you.

I can assure you we're all working in the same direction. We have different means of getting there, but we're working in the same direction. I will be pleased to make this material available to the committee researchers and to discuss it with any of the members of this committee at length. We do have concrete alternatives. There are legislative proposals. There are many alternatives we do have available right now that should be looked at.

.1010

I might note that the chief coroner of B.C., Vince Cain, suggested that the time to act is now. He said there's plenty of information out there that says we should be moving now. We don't need massive levels of new studies. I'll be pleased to provide that document to you as well, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): A distinction must be made between hard drugs and soft drugs. In my opinion, if we fail to do so, we are making a mistake.

In my opinion, marijuana and hashish should not be lumped into the same category as hard drugs. What do you think? I do, however, have some problems with the idea of possibly decriminalizing hard drugs such as heroin, which can destroy a person's life. I believe we must take very effective steps to fight this problem.

[English]

Mr. Oscappella: Monsieur Dubé, the way to look at these things is to look at the mechanism that is best going to reduce the harm associated with these drugs, and it means that we may need different regulatory schemes depending on the qualities of the drugs. I don't think any of us would want people driving while they're seriously under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of a depressant or Valium or something like that. In some cases it may be that drugs actually can improve performance, as we see in sports. We know that.

We need to deal with drugs individually. I don't think the response in any case is going to help people by criminalizing them.

Let's take the example of heroin. Heroin is perceived as a hard drug, and indeed it can be a very difficult type of dependency if you do become dependent on it. But you can be maintained on heroin for the rest of your natural life if you could obtain a clean, safe supply of that drug. It's a relatively benign drug if you get a clean, safe supply.

You're still addicted to it, and that's what we're trying to avoid, but much of the harm from heroin use today comes from the fact that it is criminalized, that people can only get it on the black market, that they don't know the level of purity of the substance they're getting. It ranges anywhere from 10% to 95% pure, so you can easily overdose on it. You don't know what the drug has been adulterated with and you're using it in circumstances that are very dangerous, perhaps injecting with dirty syringes.

So I would see those as greater dangers than the use of heroin itself. It's the environment in which these drugs are used that actually makes them more problematic.

That said, I think we would probably have to look at a different regulatory scheme for some drugs than for others. We need to look at the qualities of each drug, just as we now do with tobacco and with alcohol. We should be looking at mechanisms that reduce the harms associated with the consumption of tobacco, whether it be labelling of tobacco products or labelling of alcohol products, as Mr. Szabo suggests. If that reduces the harms associated with the consumption of these particular drugs, then that may be an effective way.

Labelling may not be effective for other types of drugs. We don't know. I know Mr. Szabo has dealt with the labelling issue at some length, and he's knowledgeable on this issue. All we are looking at is finding the best regulatory scheme, and what we're saying is that the criminal justice system is not the best regulatory scheme for reducing the harms associated with drugs in society.

The Chairman: We're out of time, folks. I want to thank you people for coming from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.

I just want to ask the committee's indulgence for a moment. While we have a quorum, there are two matters that we may be able to deal with briefly. If we can, we'll do so. If it's going to take time, we won't do so because we have a commitment to other witnesses. I'll tell you what the issues are, and if we can expedite them we'll deal with them at this time before we hear the next witness. I invite the actual witnesses to join us at the table in the meantime.

.1015

I believe these two issues are strictly housekeeping issues, but you decide that. The first is that when we had the hearings on Bill C-71, we ordered some food and we neglected to get a motion to cover the cost of that food. I wonder, with the committee's indulgence, would you keep the clerk out of jail by passing the following resolution:

The chairman be authorized to pay the expenses for three luncheons incurred during the hearings on Bill C-71 and that the cost of these three lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.

Mr. Volpe: I like the first part.

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): What is the cost of incarcerating the clerk?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dubé: No problem. I agree.

The Chairman: All in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The other issue is that we've had a letter from John Solomon of the NDP. It's a copy of a letter sent to Bob Kilger, the government whip, and it reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Kilger:

As NDP whip I am writing to ask that Svend Robinson, MP for Burnaby - Kingsway, be removed from the health subcommittee on HIV/AIDS.

I understand that we require a motion to make it official, so the motion would be that at the request of the NDP whip, Svend Robinson be removed from the health subcommittee on HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Volpe: That committee has submitted its report, it's been accepted, moved to this committee, and it's gone.

Mr. Szabo: No, it's still going. We have a meeting next Wednesday to deal with the final draft report.

So moved, Mr. Chair.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Now we welcome the Ligue Antiprohibitionniste du Québec. French is not my best language, but we welcome you. If you could just introduce yourselves and give a brief statement, that's great and then we'll put some questions to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Bernheim (President, Ligue antiprohibitionniste du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jean-Claude Bernheim and with me today is Michel Lalancette, Vice-President of the Ligue.

We will be presenting a short brief which is only available in French for the moment, but it will be translated. Let me summarize for you what we will be presenting today. We won't bother repeating what we have already stated previously to the committee. We advocate the decriminalization and legalization of certain drugs which could then be made available by prescription or by some other similar means.

In light of the debate surrounding the issue drug use and particularly the health-related considerations, one idea that we would like to explore today is the establishment by the Standing Committee on Health of a permanent committee to examine the question of mood altering drugs.

If we want society to evolve, it is very important for the public to be properly informed and for a truly open debate to be held at which time speeches, ideas and viewpoints can be presented and shared with all Canadians.

At present, public forums are not readily accessible. For example, a committee such as yours, while public, is not very accessible to the general public and information is disseminated on a rather limited basis.

We would also like to focus on one defining element of a democratic society. In our view, drugs are first and foremost a matter of personal behaviour. People are the ones who make decisions. While admittedly, the decisions may not always be wise ones, they are nonetheless personal in nature and they involve people's bodies and minds. We also agree that some element of risk may be involved.

However, the decision on whether or not to consume a particular substance in our society is a matter of individual freedom and as far as individual freedoms are concerned, a great deal has changed.

.1020

Take, for example, homosexuality and abortion which were once considered criminal offences, although not any longer. These issues were debated publicly and the situation evolved as far as individual freedoms are concerned.

Gambling is another form of consumption in society. We know that it can cause serious problems for individuals and their families. Gambling too was once a criminal offence and this is no longer the case. Indeed, the State reaps enormous benefits from this activity.

I could give you other examples. What we want to emphasize is that the State has a responsibility to let people know about the consequences of their actions. It will not succeed in informing people and getting them to make the right decisions about managing their lives by introducing restrictive or coercive measures.

Bulimia, a problem observed in today's society, is characterized by the excessive consumption of food products, whether healthy or unhealthy. It's simply a matter of the quantity of food ingested. Is the government planning one day to regulate food consumption and criminalize bulimia? The same question can be applied to drugs. That is why we are suggesting that under the circumstances, a regional committee be set up to look into the issue and to give the public an opportunity to express its views and obtain some information.

As a means of dealing in the short term with addiction to certain types of psychotropic drugs, we advocate the establishment of harm reduction programs. These programs won't necessarily solve every problem, but they will minimize to a large extent the harmful consequences of drug use.

For example, we support the Frankfurt resolution. Certain municipalities, more particularly in Europe, have adopted programs which give people access to alternative medication or even to drugs as such, but from a public health standpoint. We welcome any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Dubé: You have come before a committee with a mandate, further to the passage of the legislation last year, to review the regulations pertaining to drugs. It is not the mandate of this committee to try and influence the government or amend the legislation. I trust you realize what mandate we have been given.

Under the circumstances, I have some difficulty understanding your position, since you seem to be calling for new legislation rather than for changes to the regulations. Have I understood you correctly?

Mr. Michel Lalancette (Vice-President, Ligue antiprohibitionniste du Québec): We feel the current legislation is inadequate. If we really want to resolve the problem or improve the situation today insofar as mood altering drugs are concerned, we will need to amend the legislation.

However, we could nevertheless introduce harm reduction measures under the current legislation. We could even go so far as to distribute heroine and cocaine in some cases. We could eliminate the concern of giving cannabis to a heroine addict undergoing a methadone treatment program, because cannabis would alleviate minor chills and feelings of discomfort. In other words, we could follow the lead of Holland, England and other world countries. We know full well that a heroine addict can function if he ingests heroine, just as a cocaine addict can.

We mustn't be afraid of making mistakes. There are many things that we can try. Many avenues are being explored today and there are similar measures that we can take here. As I said, we mustn't be afraid of making mistakes. Each addiction problem is different and we must be able to adapt our programs accordingly.

Perhaps I am not making myself completely clear, but there are cues that we must take. Let me enlighten you on this.

We recommend setting up a permanent committee to study this problem because mood altering drugs were with us yesterday, they are with us today and they will be with us tomorrow. We need a team of people to focus on this evolving situation.

.1025

We may come up with a solution today, but this doesn't mean that it will still be viable a month or two down the road. Perhaps a Canadian or a member of your committee will come up with another solution and we will move forward. Progress remains our objective.

Mr. Bernheim: We have to remember that needles and syringes are currently being distributed. Based on the current legislation's philosophy, this practice is totally illegal, but it nonetheless enables people to inject themselves with drugs more safely.

We mustn't be hypocritical. If a government embraces a philosophy and this philosophy is reflected in a piece of legislation, but if in practice, that philosophy is distorted, what kind of message are we sending out to the public and to those persons directly concerned? We are sending out a message with a double meaning and consequently, we are completely ruling out the possibility of long-term preventive action.

If we can stop being hypocritical and if we can adopt legislation and solutions which may not be perfect because nothing is perfect in this world, but which will lead to a more just society and mitigate the harmful effects of addiction to some types of drugs, we will be able to say to the State did what it could. However, we mustn't lose sight of individual freedoms. Is it possible that the State could one day condition people to act according to its wishes?

Mr. Dubé: The French sociologist Touraine said that the passage of a law was the final phase of the change process, while the beginning of the process was the debate that took place in society. In my view, society has not sufficiently debated this issue. The public is not prepared to accept everything that you are saying.

Personally, I am very open to the idea of holding a debate. However, I must remind you that you are testifying before a committee composed of members who received a mandate from the House of Commons to review the regulations arising from the legislation. Here you are talking to us about changing the law.

Mr. Bernheim: No, not at all. We are talking about the principle which should form the basis of the State's and the committee's decisions. There are two principles at issue here. The first one is information. You just stated that people are not adequately informed. We are recommending that a permanent committee be set up to initiate public debate and to satisfy the need for public information. There is no committee like this at present and it would be possible to establish one. Secondly, you stated that laws are the culmination of a process arising from a consensus among members of a society. That is not true.

Any in-depth look at the legislative process will reveal that it does not reflect the current mood of people. For proof, we need only look at the surveys conducted on cannabis which show that the majority of people are prepared to accept the legalization of cannabis. That is what the surveys have shown.

It's not true that people are demanding more repressive measures. The problem with public opinion...

Mr. Dubé: I agree in so far as marijuana and hashish are concerned, but as for the other...

Mr. Bernheim: The new legislation that was adopted is not consistent with the position held by the majority of people and you yourself recognize this fact. It is characteristic of the state's hypocritical action. For example, on the subject of syringes, current practices are is not consistent with the legislation.

.1030

We support harm reduction programs and we have explained our position. However, the State has not given itself the means of getting its policy across. In fact, it is presently exploiting public insecurity, insecurity based on misinformation.

It is common knowledge that some world governments operate on the profits generated by drugs. These governments get along well with the Canadian government which has never denounced the fact that these governments and their officials are contravening UN standards. We must stop being hypocritical about the drug issue. It represents a major social problem.

We must confront the situation. We know full well, and experience has proven it, that repressive action is not the way to reduce harmful effects. For example, in Quebec, alcoholism is less of a problem than in all of Canada combined; yet, in Quebec, alcohol is more readily accessible than anywhere else in Canada. There is not necessarily a connection between the accessibility of a product and the level of consumption.

Product accessibility makes public information possible. When a product is not accessible, it is more difficult to relay information. This fact must be born in mind when the regulations are made. A restrictive approach may always be taken, but if we want the process to be effective, we must face reality.

[English]

The Chairman: We have a bit of a problem, in that we have another set of witnesses to hear and everybody around the table wants to question this set of witnesses. I'm in your hands, because we should be out of here by 11 o'clock. I'm going to suggest you can spend your time on this witness and not hear the other one, who is in the room, or you can speed this one up and get on to the other.

In this order: Keith, Paul, Joe, and Harb.

Mr. Martin: I'll pass and let the others proceed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Paul, Joe, Harb.

Mr. Szabo: I have just one question. Would you support a strategy in which the Government of Canada would get involved, in some fashion, in the control and regulation of drugs, vis-à-vis the production and distribution of drugs, so that they are safer, cheaper, and do not involve any form of criminalization? Would you support that kind of an approach?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernheim: That is what we have been saying from the start. That is precisely what we need to do. We need to go even further than we did in the case of alcohol to some extent, but with similar guidelines in place. We need quality controls and...

[English]

Mr. Szabo: Would you describe that as decriminalization?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernheim: Obviously, decriminalization must be a process outside the criminal justice system. Medical and social authorities must be involved.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: A final question, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, if young people were told that drugs, which are today prohibited as illegal substances, are all of a sudden legal to use, and that the government will provide them safely, cheaply, etc., so that there's a harm reduction in attitude, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you think the use of drugs by young people would increase or decrease?

[Translation]

Mr. Berheim: In my view, consumption would decrease. Of course, decriminalization and legalization must not come about necessarily with a view to promoting the product. Currently, many drugs such as valium are available only by prescription. That is common knowledge. As far as I know, there is no wide-scale trafficking in valium.

.1035

Therefore, it is not whether a drug is illegal or legal, but how its use is controlled. If drugs were accessible and controlled by the State, it is likely that far fewer would be available. Medical authorities would probably also be able to step in to ensure that people were informed. This certainly won't be achieved overnight, but it could be accomplished within a relatively short period of time.

[English]

The Chairman: Keith has a question.

Mr. Martin: Sir, you said there's no traffic in valium. Do you know 10 milligram tablets of valium sell for $5 on the street, and demerol tablets, another narcotic that's legal, sell for $50 a tablet? The list goes on and on, whether you're speaking about that or diet pills that are amphetamine congeners. These so-called legal drugs are all sold on the black market for a huge mark-up. Do you realize that's happening?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernheim: Certainly, we know its happening. We see corruption and all kinds of dramatic situations. However, if the repressive action taken was less systematic or less draconian, the overall effects would be less damaging.

We shouldn't forget that prohibition in the United States resulted in thousands of deaths. We are facing exactly the same kinds of situation here.

[English]

Mr. Martin: It's not prohibition, sir. Mr. Szabo made a very good point: he asked whether do you not think consumption is going to increase with the legalization of these substances. I would argue very strongly, sir, that it would, and an example is all the so-called legal drugs we have now that are sold on the black market and are increasingly available beyond the realm of what should be legally given therapeutically by their physician.

[Translation]

Mr. Lalancette: Look at what happened in Holland, the only country in the world that truly tolerates the use of cannabis and its derivatives. When cannabis was legalized, the addiction rate rose, then subsequently stabilized and finally declined. Heroine distribution programs were later introduced; care was exercised in the case of hard drugs and people were informed about their harmful effects. In my view, Holland's system, while not perfect, works much better than ours. I think that Canada could do even better than Holland. We won't be able to legalize all drugs overnight; most likely, legalization will be phased in.

The public would of course be surprised if the government legalized drugs tomorrow morning. Since 1908, Canadians have been told that drugs are the devil's work and akin to poison. If suddenly the government were to legalize drugs, but without changing is opinion of them, we would wonder why. It might answer that it wants to control or manage the quality of drugs so as to better monitor drug addiction problems. We mustn't forget those who have an addiction problem. On the other hand, there are people who use drugs and who are not addicts.

As everyone undoubtedly knows, a person can snort a line of cocaine without necessarily becoming addicted to the substance.

[English]

Mr. Martin: We can debate this at length later on, and I would like to do that, but thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Lalancette: In closing, I would like to give you two examples.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sorry, we've had really ample time and one of the problems is the witnesses have taken a fair time to respond each time and therefore we haven't had a chance for others to intervene.

I would like the committee to give me some direction. Do we go to the next witness?

Mr. Volpe: I'd like to make a very quick comment, if you'll permit. While I found the exchange here somewhat enlightening, I want to put a couple of figures on the table for you, because you said that Quebec is the most open society but there's no relationship between, for example, openness to alcohol and consumption.

A study of Canada's alcohol and other drugs, a survey done in 1995, indicated that consumption of alcohol in Quebec from 1989, when Quebec was classified as sixth in Canada among the provinces, jumped to third in terms of consumption in 1994. That same survey showed that Quebec has the second-highest consumption of marijuana and hashish in all of Canada, substantially higher than virtually every other province except British Columbia, which has its own particular reasons for that kind of ratio. I put those there for your consideration.

.1040

You also used a series of adjectives and words that cause me to ask another question. Like Dr. Martin, I would like to have this conversation in greater length, but I'm aware of the problems we have logistically.

There is one question you haven't asked. You focused on two principles, and I'm not sure I accept the two principles but I'd like to propose another two for you. The first is whether the consumption of these drugs is either good or bad for the individual and if it is right for us to consider that it is good or bad as a consequence for the community or society as a whole. Second, what are the root causes of the consumption we've seen on increase and do we have a right to stop them? If we do and are not successful, how do we deal with whatever measures are consequent to that consumption?

Maybe if we answer those kinds of questions we can then address words like the ones you used: preventative action, infecting, repression, tolerance or exploiting insecurity, and perhaps hypocritical action. I don't think we can use those words unless we address those two principles rather than the two you asked.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernheim: We can't say that drug addiction is a positive thing. There is no question that it is bad. As I was saying earlier, bulimia is also bad. We must ask ourselves how we can deal with these ills in our society.

We maintain that repressive measures are not the answer. We have adopted this stance since 1908 and as you said, consumption is on the rise. Obviously this is not an effective way of alleviating the problem. I don't think we will ever have a society in which there are no addiction problems, including addiction problems involving drugs that are currently deemed illegal.

As for the other principles at play, when we speak of prevention, there is double meaning. We know full well that under the circumstances, we are not truly able to practise prevention. We need only look at the tobacco issue. Tobacco is still a legal substance, although it may not be for much longer. We can get information out to young people and when we do so in a certain way, it can be effective. If tobacco were to become illegal tomorrow morning, prevention would become more difficult because those who once consumed those products legally would continue to do so secretly and therefore they would not be receiving any information.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We now invite the last group of witnesses to the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Lalancette: Could I say a few more words?

[English]

The Chairman: I doubt it, but try.

[Translation]

Mr. Lalancette: Everyone knows that alcohol is a mood altering substance. Why should it be given a special status at the expense of other mood altering drugs? This is a case of blatant discrimination. Alcohol is managed very well because it is a legal substance. We could achieve the same results with other mood altering drugs.

[English]

Mr. Volpe: We were just looking for validation of your argument.

.1045

The Chairman: I have a word to the committee first of all. I cannot do the impossible. If you want four sets of witnesses per meeting at a half hour each, you have to play ball and stay within the half hour. I want to be everybody's buddy. When the guy is still talking eight minutes later, I wonder if he knows what that means himself. If we're going to have four witnesses, let's play ball and give it a half hour each. When the half hour is up, have the grace to yield so we can get on to the next one.

Luckily we don't have a committee sitting here at eleven o'clock, but we do have other commitments. I have another meeting elsewhere at eleven.

The second point is aimed at witnesses generally, not particularly the ones at the table now. If we're going to have an exchange, we can't have the kind of thing we just had where you get quite long-winded responses to each query. The whole purpose of this exchange is not to say all we know, because in some cases that could take an extra 15 minutes, in mine certainly. We don't have to say all we know. As witnesses coming to the table, feel free to give us a brief, however extensive, but don't feel that while you're at the table you have to say all you know on all subjects. If you're put a question, try to respond to it briefly in fairness to other witnesses and other members who wish to answer the questions.

The thing essentially broke down. That was one of my worst experiences in committee. It broke down because nobody was playing ball, basically. So I appeal to both witnesses and committee to try to appreciate the constraints under which we find ourselves, time-wise. We'd like to hear all people ad nauseam but time and money don't allow that.

Now we go to the Canadian Nurses Association. Believe us, we're delighted to have you, it's just that we don't have very much time to hear you. If members can stay beyond eleven o'clock, we'll stretch it just a bit, as long as you can stay beyond eleven also.

Rachell, you're the president. Welcome. Please introduce your colleagues and give us a statement, if you will, and give us some time to ask some questions.

Ms Rachell Bard (President, Canadian Nurses Association): Thank you, Mr. Simmons.

Actually, nurses are known to be very efficient and quick, so we will try to respect the timeframe we've been allotted.

[Translation]

My name is Rachell Bard and I am the President of the Canadian Nurses Association. I am also the Director General of the Mental Health Services Division in New Brunswick. The subject on today's agenda is one that I have been following closely.

With me today is Mary Ellen Jeans, Director General of the Canadian Nurses Association. We are very pleased that the committee has undertaken this study into drug and alcohol policies and that we were invited to participate.

[English]

We would like to begin by sharing with you a short CBC radio clip that just last week was awarded a CNA media award by an independent committee. I think this radio program, entitled ``Downtown Nursing'', will give you a very graphic sense of the challenges we are facing in the area of substance abuse.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Audio Presentation]

.1050

Ms Bard: The media report you just heard gives you a glimpse of a day in the life of a public health nurse working in downtown Vancouver.

The issue of substance abuse goes well beyond the use of illicit drugs by street people. One in three hospital admissions are related to drug and alcohol abuse. Nurses witness the full range of the devastating effects of substance abuse in Canadian lives. There is also a huge economic cost in terms of health care and productivity, not to mention the cost of human suffering.

[Translation]

In addition to taking part in public health and education programs, nurses are involved in prevention, treatment and research programs. Among other things, we help to educate seniors about their drugs. We administer smoking cessation and needle exchange programs. We educate students in the schools, provide counselling to people with alcohol and drug addiction problems and work with communities in the drafting of alcohol and drug abuse prevention policies.

[English]

We would like the committee to look carefully at the issue of alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drug use. These continue to be the greatest source of substance abuse, and yet our society has become complacent about their use. In particular, we are concerned about the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs. This is often caused by lack of information about their effectiveness and how they should be used in appropriate prescribing practices, lack of system accountability, and confusion over similar product names and packaging.

We are extremely alarmed about the rising smoking rate of young people between 15 and 19 years old. The need to return nurses to our public and secondary schools becomes a priority if we want to reach out and be an access point for children and youth.

I'd like to make the committee aware that while we talk about street drugs and so on, there are some over-the-counter drugs.... Recently youths are actually purchasing Gravol to try to get some type of high and reaction. I think some attention really needs to be paid to this whole issue.

We're also concerned about the lack of substance abuse treatment programs and support for youths under 18, women with children - as we heard in the media clip - the elderly, the aboriginal communities, and people with different cultural backgrounds. We believe the responsibility for addressing substance abuse must be shared by all.

The federal government can play an active role in two ways. First, it can do so by developing policies and programs, and this includes considering the health consequence of economic and fiscal policies. Major cuts to social programs today will result in social instability in the future. This can lead to a high rate of substance abuse.

We also encourage federal action on child care and access to post-secondary education. While an integrated child tax benefit will help, it is simply not enough.

The federal government must also take responsibility for ensuring that services are accessible. The recently released report of the national forum on health recommended strengthening our publicly funded system to include prescription drugs. Substance abuse prevention and treatment services must be part of the system.

The federal government should also support research on substance abuse issues and the social factors involved. We encourage ongoing support for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; that was part of the recommendation of this committee during the last review.

The second area in which the federal government can play a key role is regulations. The three biggest issues - tobacco, alcohol, and drugs - all fall within the purview of the federal government.

.1055

Action includes the following: regulating the sale, advertising, and promotion of tobacco products - we urge the government to pass Bill C-71 as introduced; labelling alcohol products to warn of the dangers to the unborn child associated with product consumption during pregnancy; and reducing the effect of misuse and abuse of prescription drugs by restricting the advertisement of prescription drugs, standardizing the shape, size, and colour of equivalent drugs, and ensuring that the list of over-the-counter drug is appropriate.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, the problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse are complex and too numerous for us to be able to discuss fully during this brief hearing. However, we share in the responsibility of dealing with this important social problem. Nurses and the health care professionals in Canada are prepared to do their part, but we urge the government to show leadership by drafting policies and regulations to assist us in our task.

Thank you. We are now prepared to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Antoine.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Since I was absent, I will abstain.

[English]

Mr. Martin: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask your opinion on whether, along the lines of what Mr. Szabo asked before, legalizing drugs is going to cause an increase or decrease in consumption. From my years of working in the field, watching communities having to move Lysol, after-shave lotion, hairspray, Tylenol Ones, Gravol, and cough medication containing dextromethorphan behind the counter because of consumption, I can't help but personally think legalizing these drugs is going to result in an increase in consumption. Having them widely available for people to consume is not going to result in a decrease, but in an increase.

While we can argue personal freedoms exist, what is the collective responsibility for this? Society, being the collective, I think has a responsibility to make demands on the individual.

Ms Mary Ellen Jeans (Executive Director, Canadian Nurses Association): This is a really complex issue. There are so many substances that have negative health effects, and achieving the balance between what is legislated or legalized and what is not legalized is a challenge. I don't think we have a final answer on that.

It's something that probably requires more debate, but I would say that we believe children should be the focus of the debate. If there are ways, without perhaps getting into the extremes of legalization, in which we can protect the children of Canada from the consumption of many of these products.... I agree that if a 12-year-old kid can go into a drug store and buy four bottles of cough medicine, we have a problem, but does that mean we don't legalize cough medicine?

Mr. Martin: I wasn't referring to actually making them illegal. I was just illustrating that the wide availability of the substances people get a buzz off is going to promote increased consumption vis-à-vis the drugs we're talking about that are currently illegal.

Ms Jeans: I think if we focus on kids and their capacity to access these things, we may have at least shut off part of the problem. I think it's when they start young that we really are in deep trouble as a society.

The Chairman: Paul, then Andy, please.

Mr. Szabo: I'm grateful that you raised the labelling issue. It came up again in our tobacco hearings with regard to whether it constitutes education or whether it's an essential element of a more comprehensive strategy. I appreciate your bringing it up.

I'm tremendously frustrated with the issue of FAS and the cost to the family. The dollars don't matter when you have an FAS child and know that it was a preventable tragedy, as the health committee of the House of Commons reported back in 1992.

My frustration is that we know it's preventable. We know there's a real cost associated with it, but try to get the figures. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is almost challenging them - it's not 5% of birth defects and it's not $2.4 billion a year to Canada to deal with the additional health care, social program, and criminal justice costs associated with FAS.

.1100

Is there any movement or progress, or do you have any words of wisdom for this committee vis-à-vis FAS? Where are we and what can we do?

Ms Jeans: As you know, we do support labelling products. We had unlimited resources. We have really fallen down in Canada in terms of our health care system; most of the resources have been put into an acute care highly medicalized model. I don't use the word ``medicalized'' as nurses versus medicine, but that's been the bulk of our system.

I think we need an army of nurses to work in the communities with pregnant women, new moms, and newborns. That's where the investment should be, because that's where you get the long-term pay-off.

I agree with you that this is a tragedy, and we can identify other tragedies that happen because we don't have the resources at the front end to prevent some of these things and identify people at risk.

Mr. Szabo: We had a group come before us that I believe had to do with the crime prevention association. They worked a lot with FAS models. We asked whether or not the parents of FAS kids had been aware of the possibility that alcohol consumption during pregnancy could harm their child. They said then that sadly very few had known. Is it your knowledge that women, generally, know that alcohol consumption during pregnancy may be a risk to their fetus?

Ms Bard: I would see that as the concept underlying the whole investment in promotion and prevention. I think the more we can educate Canadians about some of the consequences of a pregnant woman taking drugs, the better chance we have of making a difference and preventing this child from being affected.

You're correct. We see in a number of ways that we need to educate Canadians about basic health concepts, such as prevention and taking better care of themselves. Certainly that's one area in which nursing has a major role to play by providing some knowledge to Canadians about what is good and giving health tips about looking after themselves.

I think a role we have is empowering ourselves to take better care - the whole concept of self-care and educating mothers about the impact they can have on children.

The Chairman: Andy, then Harb.

Mr. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be as brief as I can.

I'd like to give you the opportunity to articulate your position on this question. One of the things we're dealing with has to do with to what extent this is a criminal issue, to what extent this is a health issue, and to what extent we should take a harm reduction approach as opposed to a justice, criminal kind of approach.

Unfortunately, one of the things that happens in the debate is that people are pushed to polls and sometimes harm reduction approaches to this are equated with the full-scale legalization of the drug industry in Canada. So somehow we're equating a needle exchange program with a heroin factory. I'm not sure it's a fair way to have this discussion.

I'd like to give you the opportunity to articulate, if you could, where you stand on this. I assume we recognize that there is a middle ground between a very criminally driven throw-them-in-jail approach and the state taking over the drug distribution system for the nation. Surely there's a place in the middle, and I'd like to hear where you are.

Ms Jeans: I'm going to answer by not placing myself in the middle, but by asking two questions, partly as a citizen and a taxpayer. Which approach costs more, and which approach shows evidence of working? I don't know that we have the answer to those questions, but I think if equal health outcomes can be achieved by harm reduction I would rather see us go that route than become a police state monitoring every substance.

.1105

I don't know the answer. I don't think we have enough evidence. Maybe what we need are some real evidence-based projects to try to do some comparative analysis. I think if we get into highly punitive and costly mechanisms we do risk some of the values that Canadians hold. I don't envy you your debate; it's not any easy one.

Ms Bard: I would add that in my day-to-day work life I deal with people in the community as well as people in the correctional system, and the punitive approach is not reaching out either. When we really look at it, where do we invest to try to make a difference, because we're dealing with a situation.... And we also need to look and see how can we make a difference for the future.

I think we need to invest in educating and investing in children to allow them to make some valuable choices. People have choices, and we need to be able to give them both sides and allow people to make choices. Taking a punitive approach is not going to help either, because people will still have choices. We have to be able to find a middle ground in showing what are some of the consequences and how we can then make Canadians responsible in regard to this matter.

The Chairman: Harb.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In your presentation you've concentrated more on alcohol, prescription drugs and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco are legal products, and so are prescription drugs. We have a lot of abuse in those areas. From my experience, alcohol and tobacco cause huge problems for our society in terms of health problems and domestic problems and criminal situations as a result of alcohol. When I toured a prison the prison warden said 75% to 80% of all crime is linked to drug and alcohol abuse.

In these products of alcohol and tobacco and prescription drugs there's also a lot of abuse. Shouldn't we be working in those areas first and having strong preventative programs, where I think society would benefit the most, to see in fact if we can change the behaviour so that we have less abuse of those drugs? As a starting point we can debate the hard drugs and all that. And it will be very tough to come to some conclusions. But shouldn't we as a society and government be putting more resources toward addressing those three problems first before we try to tackle the more difficult problems as far as soft and hard drugs?

Ms Bard: I would certainly support that. I guess it goes in line with what the Canadian Nurses Association has advanced all along, that we need to invest in promotion and prevention initiatives and actually invest some dollars in some programs.

We need to start at the base. So certainly reaching out to children and seeing that nurses are accessible to children in the school system so that some valid information can be provided is an area. Dealing with at-risk families or at-risk mothers is another area. The whole concept of promotion and prevention needs some attention and some dollar investment, while we know it takes a while to see some of the difference.

Mary Ellen, do you want to add on?

Ms Jeans: Only to say that you're right, this is a big problem, and if you focus on some of the products and the age group I think the difference in the long run is children. I know that governments exist for four or five years and that you want to see outcomes of your decisions. The outcomes of investing in kids today you won't necessarily see in four or five years, you'll see them ten or twenty years out. But for the good of society I think that's where the target needs to be.

You're not going to change a whole lot of adults, no matter how complex your system is. But the more you push on kids.... And kids have a tremendous effect on their parents. Every little kid today goes around saying you shouldn't smoke. If they become committed to that it rubs off on society.

.1110

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have a final, quick question.

In terms of FAS, the fetal alcohol syndrome problem, shouldn't health care workers, doctors and nurses, be playing a stronger role? Every woman must see a doctor when she's pregnant, and isn't it part of their role to educate them? Shouldn't they be more aware of the problem? Is there a problem in terms of we're not doing enough for the educational part of it within our whole health care program in terms of advising people on abuse of prescription drugs?

We read a lot about more drugs being prescribed by doctors than are really necessary and there's an abuse there. Shouldn't health care workers spend more time in ensuring that where they can make a difference they do make a difference and they're not doing enough there?

Ms Bard: You're correct. I did say in my presentation that it's a collective approach. It's not just the responsibility of one professional group. It's the responsibility of all professionals who are working with and in the health system to provide the appropriate information. So you're absolutely correct. It's a responsibility that all professionals have to provide that information.

The Chairman: Thank you both for coming. We're sorry we delayed you a little, but we got off schedule.

Mr. Volpe: Before you adjourn the meeting, there are a couple of things that have come up out of the witnesses this morning. I wonder whether the committee would be disposed, if we haven't already done so, to ask our researchers to see if we can get some witnesses to come forward to address the problem that seems to be coming up more and more frequently and with greater insistence, and that is the phenomenon of substance abuse, pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter drugs and their abuse, both the incidence and the frequency thereof among some communities. I think the ones that have been mentioned this morning have been particularly -

The Chairman: Did you get all that, Nancy?

Mr. Volpe: - focusing on the aboriginal community as one.

Ms Nancy Miller-Chénier (Committee Researcher): We've had two panels of experts already on specific substances, one on nicotine and one on illicit drugs. The plan was we would also have one on prescription drugs, solvents, over-the-counter drugs, and another one on alcohol. So that's -

Mr. Volpe: So that's already in the works?

Ms Miller-Chénier: It's in the works. It's getting the people together.

Mr. Volpe: Thank you.

The Chairman: Antoine.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: As you know, we were scheduled to hold a regional hearing, but it has been cancelled. In anticipation of this hearing, I provided a list of witnesses which included, among others, the Centre de toxicomanie de la Maison Jean-Lapointe in Quebec. Are they on the list of scheduled witnesses? I also had on my list a witness from Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Lévis.

[English]

The Chairman: I hate to take this kind of a crack at my good friend Grant Hill in his absence, but Keith is here, so he'll pass it on. And I think it's quite on the public record that thanks to Grant our trip was cancelled. What we're about to do now to save money Grant Hill fashion is bring the witnesses in at greater cost than if we would have seen them in the region.

Mr. Martin: From Australia?

The Chairman: No, from the Atlantic provinces. Newfoundland is in the Atlantic provinces. We were going to go down there because we could see some facilities and it would be cost-effective in terms of what number of witnesses we could see. What we're now going to do is bring the witnesses here at greater cost than the trip would have cost.

Mr. Martin: Instead of doing that, Mr. Chairman, why don't we ask these witnesses to give us submissions on paper rather than bringing them up. And if we need to bring them up, we'll make that decision after the fact. We would save the taxpayer a lot of money by doing that.

Mr. Volpe: While we're at it - and I don't mean to be facetious, I think it's a good idea - why don't we just ask our researcher to collect the briefings of all the people who are going to come forward. Then after we've been given about three or four weeks to read them all, we might come down here and discuss their contents. We used to do that at university, and I think it's a great idea, but we used to finish that off with a test.

.1115

If we can find somebody who would summarize all of that for us, then we could all get the discussion in focus. I'm not being facetious, but I think that's where we're headed, and if that's where the committee wants to go, then I think that's what we should do.

I'm not one who likes half measures, and unfortunately this is a place where we sometimes compromise. If it's going to cost us more to bring people here than for us to go over there, I don't think it's cost-effective. I think the idea of getting submissions from everybody and maybe sending them some expense money for having put the briefs together would be sufficient. Then we can ask our researchers to do a synopsis for us and come in here and have a forum of two or three or four days to get that resolved. That might be the best way to do it. We'd revolutionize the way committees operate. We should think about that.

Mr. Martin: I think it's a very good idea.

The Chairman: We're out of time now.

I don't quibble with Joe's word ``revolutionize''. I would maybe put a different connotation on it than Keith or Joe is putting on it. Revolutionize, as in dramatic change, yes; it would certainly dramatically change what we're doing. Whether it would be worth doing is another question. I can get tongue-in-cheek, too. Maybe before we talk to witnesses we should make sure they don't mail these things postage-free, because we could be paying another 46¢ each for those submissions, you see.

It gets to the point where I can tell you how to save all the money. Let's have no hearings. Let's go home. We're almost at that point right now. This is such a farce, this hypocrisy about saving money. I'm here to save a few dollars too. It's my tax money too. But it's gotten to the point that the whole committee hearing on this, which started out to be a good process, has just about ground to a halt because somebody has this obsession with saving money for its own sake.

I just interjected and got this discussion going unnecessarily, and I apologize. I interjected that we have it within our authority and at some point we're going to make a decision on whether we go with this drug study or not. If we go with it, we have to stop nickel-and-diming it to death.

This is a hearing. This is not an exercise in précising résumés or submissions from witnesses. This is a hearing, and that presumes we can have an exchange. I can't exchange with a guy who's down in New Brunswick or Quebec somewhere writing me letters. I want to eyeball him either here or in New Brunswick if we're going to have a hearing. So what we're going to wind up doing if we're going ahead with a hearing is bringing people in.

To put a finger on the hypocrisy, I just gave notice that in the process of bringing those in, which we have the authority to do now - we need no decision from the committee - we'll bring them in at greater cost than we would have seen them for had we gone into the region. That was the only point I was making.

Keith.

Mr. Martin: I would like to strike a compromise, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Well, I suggest you talk to your colleague about the compromise and we'll deal with it at the next meeting.

Mr. Martin: This is going to be the compromise, Mr. Chairman. I'll put a motion forward on the floor.

In order to get the best possible outcome for this committee, I think we can get an excellent outcome by deriving the expertise from the witnesses on the east coast. So that we can all look at the expertise from the east coast and have a discourse with them, I put a motion that we ask our researcher to get submissions from the witnesses we were considering hearing here in advance and that the committee meet to discuss those submissions after we've received them in a timely fashion.

After that time, if we need to, we will decide whether we need to call any of those witnesses. If we have to provide them with a stipend, so be it. That will provide us with the information, enable us to do an excellent document, and save the taxpayer money, not nickel and dime. That's the motion.

The Chairman: Herb.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I share your view as someone who believes that to really get a first-hand view you have to tour the facilities and talk to the people. I don't think we save money, because if we save money in this committee, this means more money is available for another committee to do their travelling. So I don't think we're really saving money by not travelling.

I don't agree with the Reform member, Grant Hill, that we shouldn't travel. I think this is a very important matter. This is a very serious matter for Canadians, and unless we have a hands-on view, talk to people directly, view the facilities, and talk to the people there, I don't think we can really justifiably do a good job on this report.

.1120

I would hope that my colleague Keith would go back to Grant Hill to ask for his cooperation to have the funds allocated for travel.

Mr. Martin: I have a motion on the floor.

The Chairman: Antoine.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Will we be sitting in camera?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Dubé: I have been monitoring the situation for some time now. I realize that elections are looming, but quite aside from partisan issues and ties, there is another important issue to consider. I listened to the testimony of witnesses such as those representing associations located here in Ottawa. They had an interesting point of view to convey to us. However, I think it is critical that we hear from people elsewhere, from those who are undergoing treatment for drug addiction and from the people who have been treating addicts for many years and who have become discouraged. Their views will not necessarily be the same as those of the witnesses we heard from this morning.

I would like to take one particular example, namely that of the Centre de la Maison Jean-Lapointe. I put a question to the centre last October and I received an answer this morning. They no longer comply with the federal Health Department criteria. This addiction treatment centres now operates under the control of the Quebec health department. The provinces must be involved in the process of coming up with solutions, because this problem transcends provincial borders. Drugs are not static and people move from province to province. Therefore, I call upon...

A compromise could be worked out. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development arranged a teleconference. Apparently, this approach was less costly. This would enable us to devote a day or a half day of hearings to people from Quebec, from the West and so forth. I think this is essential and we have to ensure that representatives of the Quebec government and of the province concerned are able to express their views on what is being done to fight this problem. This issue transcends parties and politics.

[English]

The Chairman: I really have trouble keeping my cool on this because of the hypocrisy. We can drag the whole Liberal caucus to Quebec City or the Reform caucus to Halifax at public expense and we can't find the money to take a half dozen committee members to hear a treatment. It's so full of hypocrisy I could vomit.

Now I suggest one or two things to you. Either defeat the motion or hold it over, table it so we can deal with it when we have time. We're going to change the whole approach. If we're going to do this with video conferences or nickels and dimes or whatever, let's not do it under the gun right now. We should all be out of here. If you're inclined to go in the direction of that motion, table it. If you're going to vote it down, then call the question, whichever you like. That's my advice to you so that we have time to consider it.

Mr. Szabo: I'd like to call the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The question has been called.

Motion negatived

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: May I put another motion forward? I move that we hold a teleconference.

[English]

The Chairman: I just appealed to the committee that if we're going to change the basic direction by which we're doing the drug study, let's leave it over where we have time to discuss it at another meeting, if you don't mind. We're already a half hour behind time and I have a meeting that started at 11 o'clock that I'm supposed to be chairing.

Mr. Martin: Let's table it for the next meeting.

Mr. Volpe: This is a matter for the organizational subcommittee and I think you should discuss that there.

The Chairman: We'll take notice of your motion for another meeting.

Mr. Dubé: Yes.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page