Debates of May 17th, 2001

Supply

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since he is the parliamentary secretary for justice, I would like to ask him a question that relates to drugs in prison. I know a fair bit about this and have watched it over the years. Even today there are drug cartels in prisons, which is unbelievable.

Something that has always perplexed me is there are people going into prisons who are not addicted to drugs and coming out addicted. There are a lot of drugs in prisons. If we cannot stop that kind of drug activity in a prison where there are bars, razor wire and big walls to keep people out, how on earth will it be possible to stop the proliferation of drugs on the outside?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very interesting concept which the man on the street finds hard to believe, that behind these custodial facilities there is a drug problem. It is another area that the committee should look into. It is a question that might better be put to the solicitor general or the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general who have carriage of that aspect of our government.

We are fighting drugs in prisons. Prisons have ion machines and searches are conducted. There are some very unique ways in which contraband is brought into prisons. One method is by placing contraband in human orifices. It is a question of how far we go with our searches. We will have to go further. We will have to be militant and vigilant with the individuals who deal with these offenders, whether they are on day parole or something of that nature.

Drugs are getting in somehow and we have to stop that flow. We have to combat the whole situation within prisons, including diseases that can be communicated through drug use with needles. We have to fight it. This is what the committee needs to look at to make proper recommendations to the government, and I am extremely positive that the government would move on these recommendations.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The meaning of the amendment tabled by the government is not immediately clear. Could you read the amendment tabled by the government?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The amendment says quite simply that instead of June 1, 2002, the date be November 1, 2002.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Langley—Abbotsford, myself. I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois will support this motion.

I would however, since we now have a French translation of the amendment, read the first part if I may for the people joining us.

The motion tabled by the Canadian Alliance provides:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and make recommendations with respect to the ways or means by which the government can act, alone or in its relations with governments at other levels, in the reduction of the dimensions of the problem involved in such use;

I would like to make three comments on the wording proposed by our Canadian Alliance colleagues.

We want to sit on the committee. I am the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in Montreal east, and drug use and traffic and shooting galleries are a reality there.

However, I do not want the philosophy and work of the committee to be considered from a “law and order” perspective. There are certain circumstances in which drug use is a problem. There are others where it is not.

I listened earlier to our colleague from Saint John. She was getting in a bit of a state even before the work had begun. I think we should issue a call for calm. She says that she herself did a study—picture it—on cannabis, and that smoking it automatically kills nine cells a second.

I hope that she will be so good as to table these studies, because this week the Canadian Medical Association—and with all due respect for the member for Saint John, I would be more inclined to go along with the Canadian Medical Association than her on these matters—asked that possession of marijuana for personal use be decriminalized because no studies had shown that it had any harmful effects.

Naturally, when it comes to heroin or other hard drugs, I think that a different attitude is in order. But I hope that in the committee's work—and I know that the member for Rosemont—Petit-Patrie also has an interest in these matters—there will be some leeway and that a “law and order” mentality will not prevail. That is my first comment.

My second comment is this. In June of last year, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois asked me to work in a group with the member for Longueuil and the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on the whole issue of street prostitution.

I visited Vancouver. I went to that part of the city where prostitution and drug use are rampant—I think it is called the middle east—and where there have been many problems. I saw horrific scenes. I must admit, I never thought such a situation could exist in Canada.

Certainly, there are links between street prostitution and drug addiction. Of course, the problem cannot be reduced to solely an effect of drug addiction, but there is a connection between the two.

Third, I also hope that the parliamentary committee our colleague wishes to strike will have the necessary resources to carry out investigations. Often, in my opinion, we rely on hearsay, on statements that often feed prejudice.

I hope that we will have the full co-operation of the departments of justice and of health and that of Correctional Service Canada, so that we will have access to all available data.

Third, I recall that a certain amount of work has already been done. Today is not the first time Canada and the provinces have addressed the consequences of drug use. As long ago as 1969, we had the Le Dain Commission. We need, I believe, to start with what has already been done. There are other basic premises as well, of course, but I do believe we need to start with what has already been done.

Our hon. colleague, the sponsor of the motion, has just made the statement that the Senate committee had restricted itself to cannabis. I have looked into this, and the Senate committee did not limit itself to the cannabis issue. It is engaged in an overview of the entire drug use situation in Canada. This Senate committee, chaired by Senator Nolin, has a two-year mandate. This is not something that can be done in a couple of days.

Even if my political party, and that of the hon. member who sponsored the motion, would like to see the Senate abolished, we ought I think to take inspiration from its resources and the work its people are doing.

We need to keep in mind that assessing the consequences of drug use cannot divorce this problem from the social considerations. We will also have to make a connection with poverty and with the meaning of life. It is interesting to see that there is often a connection between the use of drugs and an environment where poverty is prevalent. I hope that we will keep this in mind when the time comes to make recommendations and deal with these issues.

Another issue that the committee will have to examine is how effective the repressive approach has been so far. The motion reflects a degree of conservatism, in my opinion. It refers to drug use as if it were a phenomenon or a problem. However, its mover was very eloquent in concluding that, so far, the repressive approach has not been effective at all. It cannot be said that using this repressive approach, prohibiting drug use and making it a criminal offence have had much impact on the balance that we as parliamentarians are trying to establish.

I now want to deal with another important issue. Earlier, I wondered whether we should start from the framework proposed under the harm reduction strategy. This framework, with which Health Canada officials are familiar, is rather well defined. Of course, it is not a magical solution that automatically makes people stop using drugs, but it is a model for action.

The harm reduction strategy is based on three elements. There is recognition of the fact that there are people who have drug dependency problems. No moral judgment is made. No one says that it is good or bad. Rather, there is simply recognition of the fact that there are people who use drugs and that this makes them dysfunctional and can even adversely affect the communities in which they live.

Two, three, four or five years can elapse between the time when this is recognized and the time when these people actually stop using drugs, particularly soft drugs.

What can be done to ensure that drugs are used under the safest conditions possible for the user and his surroundings? The safest possible surroundings means that dirty needles are not used or shared among users, that there are places to inject safely and to exchange needles and that the needles are recovered and cannot be used in the community.

This is the model proposed under the harm reduction strategy. This model is known to the various interveners, especially people in the regional boards and those in the health field.

There is another statistic we should bear in mind in doing our work. According to police data, data available from the various police forces, the RCMP, the SPCUM and the Sûreté du Québec, barely 1% of drugs on the market are intercepted. This means of course that there is a whole element of drug use and of drug trafficking that is totally beyond police control.

According to various police data, somewhere between 1% and 10% of narcotics are intercepted by the police. Should we not conclude there is some link between the prohibitionist strategy that has been followed now for several decades and the fact that the police have been unable to stop drug traffickers? The committee should look at this question.

I also want to remind the House that, in our consideration of drug use, we should make a distinction between cannabis and heroin or other hard drugs.

In 1999, a Canadian Alliance member introduced a bill. I know that we may not name members but, since I do not know the name of his riding, allow me to disregard the standing orders for 30 seconds. I am referring to the member who is a doctor, who ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, and who is a friend of the leader of that party. On April 26, 1999, he introduced Bill C-503 to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana. I would ask the member who moved the motion today whether he supports the bill introduced by his colleague.

In my party, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie also moved a motion, which was voted on, in which he urged parliamentarians to decriminalize the use of cannabis for medical purposes.

I understand that today's motion is about the use of drugs for non-medical purposes; that is very clear in the motion. Should we admit from the outset that cannabis should be treated differently than other drugs? In all likelihood, there is no harm associated with moderate consumption. The Canadian Medical Association reminded us that there is scientific evidence to support this.

That is so much for the premise. I am grateful to the member for Langley—Abbotsford for moving this motion. As parliamentarians, we are capable of taking an objective look at this issue. Obviously, when I talk about an objective look, I realize that we all have our own moral values regarding drugs. However, as parliamentarians, we cannot impose those morals on others.

I hope that we will be guided in our work by two main concerns: the safety of communities and the issue of crime.

Once again, questions have to be asked about the current repressive approach, which has been in effect for 50 years, has created a sizeable black market and has led to clashes within the world of organized crime.

Since 1995, there have been at least 147 victims of motorcycle gang turf wars. Battles over territory are most certainly connected with establishing areas in which they can sell drugs. These are all matters we need to bear in mind.

I can assure our Alliance colleague that the Bloc Quebecois will make a very serious contribution to this committee. I do not know whether the Canadian Alliance agrees with the amendment presented by the government on the reporting date of November, but we will have an opportunity to discuss that. I am also going to look at this with the leader of my party.

I do, however, believe that there is considerable consensus in this House on the striking of this committee. I trust that it will have all possible means available to it in order to do quality work and, therefore, draft informed recommendations.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, yes, we agree with the date change. It is a friendly amendment because it would allow us over the summer of 2002 to look at that as well.

Also in response to my colleague, yes, there are probably members of this party and every party in the House who think marijuana should be looked at in terms of legalization or decriminalization. That is one of the reasons politicians in Canada are so reluctant to talk about drugs, as we are doing here today for the first time in decades. It is because they do not want to answer the question of whether marijuana should be legalized. That is one of the things that should be within the scope of the committee. A lot of people out there and in the House have yet to form an opinion.

The hon. member brought up the issue of prostitution and suggested that it was correlated to drugs. He said that prostitution and drugs were cause and effect. I have accompanied the Vancouver police and have looked through facilities where drug addicts and prostitutes live. I can tell hon. members that the average person would not put a dog in those kinds of places. They are rat infested, terrible, dilapidated places with used needles and condoms lying around.

Does my colleague think prostitutes are criminals or victims of the drug trade?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an interest in prostitution for the past five years. The answer will be more nuanced than the question. Could I have calm please. Those who want to take part in the debate should do so responsibly.

In certain cases, prostitutes, also known as sex workers, are definitely victims, because they did not choose this work, because they are under the control of a pimp, because they are beaten and because society is prejudiced. The state of the law prevents prostitution from being considered real work.

I remind all members in this House that, when prostitutes are assaulted, they cannot call in the police; since they operate clandestinely and the whole context of prostitution is criminal—there is a legislative framework—prostitutes are often victims.

I will give an example that comes from personal experience. In 1995, a meeting took place in my office to discuss the issue of prostitution. Among the sex trade workers who were present, there was a former page of the House of Commons, a person who had worked here as a page in 1993-94. At the time, I was a young member of parliament; I remember her well. So, this was a few years later. She had gone to university. She came from a well to do traditional family, but she had chosen the sex trade.

When we talk about prostitution, we must not have preconceived ideas or be biased. The reality of prostitution is not black and white.

This being said, it is true that there is a very real connection between drug dependency and prostitution. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we will have a debate on prostitution. We should clearly recognize that prostitutes are people, like everybody else. However, prostitutes must, on their part, recognize that they cannot operate anywhere, any time and any way they want.

Hon. members may remember that in June 2000, in south central Montreal, and more specifically in the riding of the Bloc Quebecois leader, there was a confrontation between local residents and sex trade workers. The public too is entitled to a certain quality of life. People should not have to put up with disgraceful scenes in front of their homes. We will have to provide a legislative framework for prostitution, something that is sorely lacking right now.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prostitution is a serious issue in Canada. The many prostitutes I have talked to were all drug addicted and were all very young children. It is sad to see.

What does my colleague think about the effectiveness of our court system? I will give one of the hundreds of examples of which I know. A fellow was caught with drugs worth a street value of $366,000. He was on social assistance as many such people are. He was given one day in jail. His track record goes back to 1972 and includes dozens of convictions for things such as possession of a restricted drug, possession of narcotics, trafficking, importing narcotics, cultivation of narcotics and on and on it goes. After all these convictions the fellow received just one day in jail.

I ask the hon. member: What is wrong with our justice system today? Why do sentences not escalate according to the number of convictions? It seems very erratic. Criminal records for some individuals go back years and years and yet they have been given five days, ten days, nothing, suspended sentences and so on. It is an erratic approach in our court system. Does that not aid and abet the drug problem?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only comment that comes to mind is a wish. When an adolescent is sentenced, I do not think that incarceration alone is the answer.

The House is of course familiar with our views on young offenders. I do not think that our views on street prostitution are different.

I have spoken to many prostitutes, and I have done so often in recent months. When someone is 16 years old and walking the streets, this should be of concern to us socially. Naturally, there is an element of personal responsibility. I do not think we should exclude individual responsibility, but I am not convinced that repression, incarceration and heavier sentences are the automatic solutions certain members of this House may think.

That having been said, when the member gives examples of repeat offenders for whom rehabilitation has obviously not worked, I think there are certain circumstances where we must face the facts and that some people must be put behind bars.

The Bloc Quebecois does not automatically maintain that rehabilitation is always the answer, but we do not wish to conceal our view that there should be a very serious attempt, particularly for those who are 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 years of age, to rehabilitate.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not talking necessarily about putting these people behind bars, but I wonder if my colleague could talk about what could be done to break the cycle of addiction.

When people have no qualms about stealing or robbing because they must have a fix, in particular of heroin and other addictive drugs, is there not a point where we must get these people into detox and rehabilitation and out of that cycle?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. We must consider the background and all the variables, but the member is right. In certain cases, we must get these people out of this cycle and put them behind bars. There are cases were a sentence is indicated, where it is the approach to consider.

Committees Of The House

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following consultations I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. I move:

That Mr. Harris and Ms. Gallant be substituted for Mr. Strahl and Mr. McNally as members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as always when I get an opportunity to speak in the Chamber, to take part in the debate today.

We are voting on whether to strike a special committee of the House to investigate factors underlying or relating to the non-medicinal use of drugs in Canada and to make recommendations regarding ways the government can act, alone or in relation with governments at other levels, to reduce the problem.

The issue is timely in the sense that we see in the newspapers and on television an increasing interest in it. There was an article yesterday in one of the Ottawa newspapers outlining the pros and cons of decriminalization. Last night counterSpin on CBC television devoted its hour to vigorous debate, as it usually does, on the pros and cons of decriminalizing some of the softer drugs, particularly marijuana.

I will begin with a synopsis of what Dr. John Hoey, the editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal , had to say on the subject. He said recreational use had proven fairly harmless over the years but that he was increasingly concerned, as are many folks in the Canadian Medical Association, about simple possession and personal use leading to a criminal offence being left on a person's record throughout his or her life.

Members of the CMA take the position that possession for personal use should by decriminalized. According to Dr. Hoey there are minimal negative effects to the estimated 1.5 million Canadians who use marijuana in a recreational way. He says the real harm is the legal and social fallout from charges of possession for personal use. He adds that 50% of all drug arrests are for simple possession.

It was interesting that members of parliament recently received a little pocketbook from Statistics Canada, “Canada at a Glance”. It was sent out in connection with the May 15 census day. According to the section on law enforcement, we are at a 20 year low in terms of criminal code offences. In virtually every category but two, and there are roughly 12, there are decreases, many substantial. For example, property crimes went down by 14.7% between 1994 and 1999. Sexual assault was off by almost a quarter in the same period.

However there are two exceptions. There was a slight increase in motor vehicle theft between 1994 and 1999. It went up 1.2%. Drug charges went up a whopping 32.8%, almost a one-third per cent increase, from just over 60,000 charges in 1994 to just under 80,000 charges in 1999, the last year for which statistics are available.

Clearly Dr. Hoey and others are saying that there is a problem. If it is true that 50% of charges, which would be some 40,000, are for possession for personal use, then there is a clear problem and a clear mandate for parliament to look at the issue in a serious way.

I was not a member of parliament in 1996 but it is unfortunate that an opportunity at that point to strike a special committee in both Houses to examine the issue was turned down. It was voted down and rejected for whatever reason. I have not yet had time to investigate why but it was turned down.

As a result, a Senate special committee on illegal drugs is well underway. It is scheduled to report next August. That would be several months before the amended date that has been proposed, which is November 2002. It is unfortunate that we will be duplicating what the other place is doing if we agree to support this. As far as I understand, all parties in the House are supportive of the motion of the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

I suspect we will be attracting the same experts to come and testify and will be meeting many of the same people. It is unfortunate, when people are concerned about spending money wisely, that we did not seize the initiative in 1996 and have one committee rather than two.

The special committee on illegal drugs being run by the other place has quite a comprehensive series of references. It refers to the Le Dain commission which began its work in 1969 and finished in 1972. Virtually 30 years later we are still debating the issue.

The Le Dain commission, we may recall, held serious consultations on the negative impact of Canadian drug policy in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It focused mainly on the non-medical use of drugs. It concluded that hundreds of thousands of Canadians found guilty of prohibited drug possession saw their personal freedom restrained for the rest of their lives because of a criminal record.

The commission also concluded that the huge police resources used to fight prohibited drug trafficking and consumption were aimed mainly at young people. Under the circumstances, the Le Dain commission recommended that sanctions against drug users be gradually eliminated, that the use of marijuana be decriminalized and that control methods other than criminal justice sanctions be used. That was the essence of what Le Dain had to say 30 years ago.

More recently, the U.S. national academy of sciences' institute of medicine published the results of a study commissioned by the white house director of drug control policy. The study dealt with the medical use of marijuana, which I appreciate is not part of the debate today. It is interesting that despite this academic finding the U.S. supreme court recently voted 8 to 0 against allowing the medical use of marijuana. I am pleased that is not the position of the government opposite and that we are proceeding along. The government's position is commendable.

We are not talking about decriminalizing marijuana. To refer to the member for Langley—Abbotsford, we are not saying that there should be no offences for use but that we should take it out of the criminal code. Even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police acknowledges that it makes sense to decriminalize possession of small quantities of drugs, including heroin, without actually legalizing them. That is one side of the issue but there are at least two sides.

Half the editorial page in the Ottawa Citizen dealt with the current city of Ottawa police chief who says that the decriminalization of marijuana or soft drugs for personal use is not a road he wants to go down. He sees the effects of drug abuse each and every day and says that it attacks the fabric of society.

He argues that marijuana and other cannabis products have much higher levels of THC than they did in the 1960s and 1970s. I do not know whether that is the case. Someone on counterSpin last night argued very vigorously that it was not. It is something the special committee could look at if the resolution passes. I suspect it is something the Senate committee will look at or may already have looked at.

A couple of other points are worth making. I wonder, given that we are going down a slightly different path than the United States, how much flexibility Canada will be allowed.

Within the last year stories have come out of British Columbia about police departments looking the other way with regard to small amounts of drug use. However we have also heard and read stories about American law enforcement officials prepared to chase suspected drug users beyond the Washington border into British Columbia and try to force the Canadian government to take a stronger position against drug use.

On the relationship between Canada and the United States, the front page of today's Ottawa Citizen features an interesting story about how high tech military spies in Ottawa have joined the United States' war on drugs by eavesdropping on South American drug lords.

With globalization and the intertwinement of our two countries, one wonders how much freedom Canada will actually have in areas like this. We obviously know that the current U.S. president and most of his predecessors have been very hawkish on trying to eliminate the importation of drugs into the United States. One could hardly imagine that they would take a softer policy north of the 49th than they would take south in Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America. That would be something which would merit attention by any special subcommittee that is established.

I would also like to make reference to my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, who has spoken out on the subject of drugs and the particular plight of people in her constituency in the downtown Vancouver area. She has been pressing the government on its response to the health crisis that results from drug use, its over use and the safety of citizens. In fact the member has raised this issue ever since she arrived in the House in 1997.

She reported that there are experts out there, including from the city of Vancouver, but the leadership and action on this issue over a long period of time has been so slow. She has called on the Minister of Health to adopt multi-centre heroin prescription trials, safe injection sites and better housing and social support.

These are some of the things the member for Langley—Abbotsford asked the colleague from the Bloc about when he referred to the places where users lived. They were places in which we would not want to put a dog. I am sure that that is absolutely true and something that needs to be looked at. Perhaps if we were to take some progressive steps here we could get beyond some of those deplorable conditions that exist now and make not only the users safer but the non-users and the people who are on the streets safer. We think, and my colleague from Vancouver East believes, it would reduce crime. We have seen examples of that in places like Europe and Australia, which have been a little more avant-garde than Canadian politicians have been.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party welcomes the opportunity to debate this issue. We will support it. We regret that a special committee of both Houses of parliament was not struck in 1996 when this matter came up. It seems that the Senate is already well down this investigative road on the illegal or legal use of drugs or the decriminalization thereof. We are just starting down this road.

Having said that, we cannot go back to 1996. It is unfortunate we did not have one committee. We will now have two, but we will be supportive of this policy and this motion.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the very productive and non-partisan approach that members in the House are taking. I would like to commend the former speaker for his comments. I noted he brought forward again the Le Dain report, which many of us recall, and the recommendation in that very significant but overlooked report.

The issue of gradually reducing the penalties on illicit drug use is of course a contentious matter, but would the member have any initial views on the non-criminalization and the elimination of penalties for the use of these drugs? I ask the question based on comments that I think many of us have received from constituents. Certainly these are comments that I have received from constituents when I served in the Manitoba provincial legislature where I represented an urban riding.

The comments go along very generally like this. If all presently illegal drugs were legalized and the distribution properly controlled, there would be no incentive to rob and otherwise injure law-abiding citizens. Then we could divert resources from law enforcement to more intensive social services to get to the root of the problem. Has the member any further comments to add on that?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of parts to that question. Let me deal with some additional thoughts on the Le Dain Commission.

Gerald Le Dain, who headed the commission, held serious consultations on the negative impacts of the Canadian drug policy back in the late 1960s, which focused mainly on the non-medical use of drugs. As the member would know, he was the former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School of the University of Toronto and former justice of the supreme court. He took the view that politicians were the ones to blame over the years for not seizing the initiatives on this issue at the beginning of the 1970s. In fact in an interview about three years ago Mr. Le Dain stated:

It was a hot potato for all the parties and they didn't want to run any risk. The position adopted by the politicians was to do nothing. We saw at the hearings the public was worried about their kids. The public saw those current laws as a tremendous injustice.

I think all parties and all governments stand accused of not doing this. It is unfortunate that time has elapsed.

With respect to the decriminalization of all drugs, I am not an expert. I would hope and think that would be part of this study. I tend to agree that we should decriminalize marijuana. That happens to be our party's policy. I really do not have a view on whether we should decriminalize ecstasy, or heroin or cocaine. I suspect we are dealing with more addictive drugs, at least that is what I am given to understand. That would be something a special committee of the House would look at, and I rather suspect the other place is looking at that as well.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Fraser Valley spoke about the drug problem primarily in British Columbia.

Could the member for Palliser tell us about the various types of drug problems in his province?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can pull them out, but I have seen some statistics that would suggest drug use in Saskatchewan is just a little under the national average and quite a bit lower than it would be in British Columbia, Quebec and perhaps one or two other jurisdictions.

In all jurisdictions, I think people who tend to be more vulnerable, the young and the poor, would use these drugs. We probably would see a greater percentage of use by native people and perhaps newcomers to Canada. Regardless of the percentage of use in a province or jurisdiction, there would probably be an overarching group of people who would be most vulnerable and likely to use these drugs more than others.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. This is not an issue about a certain type of individual. I know children from fairly wealthy families who are addicted. I know men and women who have children who are addicted. This is not something where we will look for a certain type of individual, whether they are new to Canada or have been around Canada.

I am talking about people from middle and upper income families. Their children are on the street right now selling themselves. As I said before, they are right now shooting between their toes because there is no other place in their arms to shoot up.

This is not just about the legalization of marijuana. This is about cocaine, ecstasy, LSD and heroin. It is about things that kill and addict people. That is what the committee has to wrestle with.

The question I have for the hon. member who just spoke is this. Could he explain in his own words the idea of rehabilitation and the types of facilities for that? For instance, in British Columbia there are scant few detox facilities. There are very few intermediate ones. There may be one long term rehabilitation facility in all of British Columbia. Considering there are over 8,000 heroin addicts alone in Vancouver that is virtually nothing.

What kind of resources in terms of rehabilitation does he think this country needs? I know it will have to be part of the study we will be involved in. I do not know if there are many in his province, but I know they are ridiculously low and virtually non-existent in mine.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the last question, I did not mean to suggest that there are not people in all strata of our society who do not have a problem with recreational drugs, abuse and addiction too. Maybe there was some misunderstanding.

What I said was it seemed to me to be more prevalent in people who were the more vulnerable in our society. I agree with what he said. Those of us who have seen the award winning movie Traffic would see that it strikes at all levels of society.

With regard to detox centres, yes we do have some in Saskatchewan. I doubt there are enough. I imagine there is a paucity of these in all jurisdictions in the country. However I would hope that part of any study done by the House would look into that in detail.

Just on that point, the provinces deliver health care. We must work with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions to find out what is currently available and what we think needs to be done collectively to address any shortage of detox centres.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the Chamber to take part in this very important debate. I commend the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford again for his diligence and his perseverance in bringing this issue forward.

As has been stated, the motion calls upon the House to consider the factors underlying and relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada, to make recommendations, to put this matter into the hands of an all party committee and to report within a year.

Although we can all acknowledge this is a massive undertaking, it is perhaps one of the most fundamental things we can do in a positive fashion to look for solutions to a very complicated and multifaceted problem facing many Canadians.

This motion is one which is broad enough in its terms of reference, but I have some concerns with respect to a current motion and a current committee that is undertaking a similar exercise. That committee of course is in the other place and is chaired by Senator Nolin. The issue is receiving considerable study.

The exercise being done in the other place is not limited to marijuana. It is in fact quite broad in its scope. The purpose of the study, similar to what the motion proposes, is to look at all the symptoms and causes. It calls for broad consultations with stakeholders in order to delve into the indirect harms and costs of illicit drugs in Canada.

The costs far outweigh the direct financial cost when we begin breaking it down. It is symptomatic of some of the broader social ills and vices that exist. Drugs and alcohol are in many instances escapism. They are used in an attempt to get away from the toils, the mundane and the horrors that exist in people's lives or to escape from a past that may have included a sexual assault or a terrible incident of violence.

Drug and alcohol abuse are like a cancer that eats away at productivity in Canada. People who are addicted to drugs or alcohol cannot realistically reach their potential or make contributions to society. It is almost trite to say that the impact is so broad that for many it becomes a question of where to start. The type of study we would undertake would certainly be a step in the right direction to finding out where to go, what direction we should be taking and where we should be concentrating our efforts.

Like so many problems of this magnitude, simply putting resources into existing services or attempting to address the problem will not suffice. We need to be focused in our direction when searching for a strategy.

The terms of reference of the committee in the other place, which has been studying this issue since November 1998, say that the most direct harm occurs in high risk populations, such as injecting drug users, street youth, the inner city core and natives. That is almost a penetrating statement of the obvious.

Indigenous Canadians are facing huge problems in their community. Their reliance on or addiction to drugs and alcohol has had devastating effects. Between 65% and 80% of aboriginal people have a drug problem. This has been one of the leading causes of death among the Inuit and native peoples. Injury and poisoning, with patterns of violent death, are three to four times greater than the national average when one starts to look at the drug problems and their costs in terms of human lives. Many meet unnatural deaths while drinking. Compared with 45% of non-natives, alcohol or drug involvement is the primary cause of death and is five times greater for natives.

The suicide rate for native children on reserves in Saskatchewan is 27 times higher than for other Canadian children. Native youth have a two to six times greater risk of an alcohol related problem than their counterparts in the rest of the country. We will not even get into the massive problem of fetal alcohol syndrome, which is also symptomatic of this greater challenge that we have in helping our native Canadians.

The mention of street youth and adolescents who leave home to escape physical, emotional and sexual abuse or neglect is again very acute, not only in metropolitan big cities but is becoming a problem in rural small town communities. Sometimes it is a symptom of boredom and a symptom of youth who are looking for an outlet of sorts. They are looking for something to pique their imagination or to give them some form of entertainment in a mundane life.

This is why many members and many Canadians are looking for more active attention and more acute focus on programs such as sports, recreation, music and arts as outlets for young people's energies and ingenuity, rather than in sad cases falling upon the use of drugs and alcohol as a form of recreational escape.

It is with some encouragement that we in the House again delve into this issue and not try to skirt the thorny or hot potato political aspects of decriminalizing marijuana. We are at a point where we can move beyond. We want to start looking at the hard core addictive types of drugs and the effects they are having on our youth and all other people.

The decriminalizing element and the medical use of marijuana are starting to become destigmatized. Chiefs of police and police officers are generally acknowledging that too much effort is being put into soft drugs as opposed to hard drugs such as heroin, acid, LSD and cocaine. In my home community in Pictou county there is a rash of availability of a highly addictive and destructive chemically manufactured drug called dilaudid. This is where the real cost in human lives and health seems to be spiralling out of control.

It is very much linked to another subject matter we have had before us in recent days and months, organized crime. Because of the demand and the profitability organized crime chooses to prey upon a person's vulnerabilities and addictions. This is where much of our focal point should be in terms of law enforcement.

This is not to suggest in any way that it is a simple problem. It is a multifaceted problem. It will not only require giving police the tools and the resources. It will require a very concentrated and far reaching effort throughout health professionals, the courts, the education system and social services. Young people need to be made aware of their alternatives, as opposed to being addicted to drugs and involved in that sordid lifestyle.

The debate over the non-medical use of drugs is something that is long overdue. Other members have commented on the fact that there have been various studies and attempts in the past to wrestle with this very thorny issue. This is a wonderful non-partisan opportunity for us to wrap our arms around the motion and get the appropriate individuals and representatives to participate in the process.

I caution again about the risk of duplication. Much of the exercise has begun and is continuing in the other place. It is unfortunate that there is not some way to combine our efforts and tap into the research and the work that have been done already.

Government is offering exemptions from prosecution to persons with serious illnesses who grow or use marijuana. Approximately 210 people have obtained these types of exemptions. There is a case involving a gentleman by the name of James Wakeford who is now seeking to force the federal government to supply him with a safe and consistent supply of marijuana. He believes it is safer to be able to buy a supply of marijuana from the government. We know there have been steps taken in that area.

The province of Saskatchewan is at the forefront of this area. The Prairie Plant System in Saskatchewan has won a five year $5.7 million contract from the government to supply marijuana for medical and research purposes by next year.

I have one concern about the actual effect of marijuana use. It appears there may be some research lacking in the health risks associated with that particular drug. Higher levels of THC and a higher risk of carcinogenesis can result from marijuana being taken into a person's system.

There is a lot of controversy on this issue south of the border. The efforts and the resources that the Americans have put into this issue are astronomical by comparison. In terms of the money alone, the drug strategy and the efforts of law enforcement by our American neighbours as compared to what we are doing in Canada truly pales by comparison. Arguably we may be moving in a different direction, one that is aimed more at the root of the problem.

The United States supreme court ruled just this past week against the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes and struck down existing regimes in California, Arizona and a handful of other states that had held referendums on the subject matter of distribution. This is in sharp contrast with what we have seen and the growing trend that exists in Canada where the government has taken steps toward legalization.

It is also interesting to note that this week the Canadian Medical Journal called for the decriminalization of marijuana. It clearly stated on the record that this was its position.

We know that policing has moved in more recent years toward focusing on the real criminals, those who distribute the drugs and those who exploit children who are prone to using all types of drugs, not just marijuana or hashish. It is a complex issue.

In Vancouver, where the mover of the motion has focused much of his commentary, the police themselves are deeply divided over a departmental policy of not recommending charges in connection with marijuana growing operations. The focus is now on shutting down the operations while allowing the growers in some cases to go free.

There are large hydroponic operations on the west coast and we are seeing those cropping up in places around the country. There is a huge market in the United States. Statistics indicate that of the top three or four products being exported out of the province of British Columbia, marijuana is in the top three or four.

In 2000, Growbusters, a team of Vancouver patrol officers set up specifically to deal with this problem, had not recommended charges against suspects even though it had raided over 100 growing operations in that past year. It simply seized the plants, the equipment and, in some cases, the home. It had city engineers shut off power so it could shut down some of these operations.

Regular drug squads continue to recommend charges. This controversy of deciding how to deal with this growing problem under the current laws goes down to the police level. It brings up the question of whether this is an effective or even legal problem as much as something that we should be looking at in broader terms, particularly in health terms.

This brings me to the point that I know other members have contemplated as well. Should we be focusing our efforts in terms of incarceration in clinics that are akin to prison where the individual cannot leave voluntarily? It would be a treatment facility as opposed to warehousing drug users and drug addicts. In some cases the drug dealers themselves are hopelessly addicted. Selling drugs to feed their habit is what has fed their appetite.

Should we be putting greater emphasis on rehabilitating and treating as an illness those who are hopelessly addicted rather than putting them, cold turkey in most instances, into prisons with other criminals? That is another problem in terms of the availability of drugs in prisons.

It is something many Canadians wrestle with. The stigma of being an addict as opposed to being a criminal is sometimes inextricable. However there is this health element and this addictive quality that exists around the use of marijuana and the use of many of these substances.

In 1999 in Vancouver only one in five growers who did wind up before the courts received jail sentences. Most received fines. In approximately a third of the warrants executed, viable suspects were found at the scene and yet were released without charges. That creates a certain friction in information sharing. Sometimes police forces take a different attitude toward how they deal with those involved in the illicit drug trade. In defence of the Vancouver police, there are reportedly over 7,000 marijuana growing operations in Vancouver alone. There are simply not enough police or legal resources to deal with the problem.

With inconsistencies occurring in police forces, though, it is obvious that we have to study this from all angles and come up with a very thoughtful, cohesive, national plan that creates a balance between law and order and health issues, a strategy that will be pragmatic and achievable. Many experts in the field possess the know-how. We should be trying to draw upon those experts who have specific knowledge of the addiction and health aspects of this problem.

It is the Conservative Party's position that the decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes is a step in the right direction. Reliance by many in society on drugs, both legal and illegal, is accompanied by these heavy social and economic costs. Neither legalization nor increased criminal sanctions will fully address the complexities of drug abuse.

We know that other parties have taken a similar approach. The mover of this motion and the Canadian Alliance Party also support decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes, although it is interesting that it was not in the party platform. That election platform did include things such as zero tolerance for illegal drugs in federal prisons, which I think is also a part of this particular issue.

In red book 3, the Liberal Party promised that a Liberal government would implement a national drug strategy to reduce both the supply of and demand for drugs. Here is an opportunity to do that. Here is the impetus, the stepping off point. We hope that statement is an indication of some consistency, perhaps for a change, on this particular issue, that there will be support and that the support will be forthcoming in the form of support for this motion.

These problems do require a variety of measures in seeking solutions. They include education, treatment, health and rehabilitative efforts and government regulations. There is no denying that the government does have a responsibility to make laws and to adjust laws in some instances.

The problem with marijuana itself is that it has become more potent in recent years. It is imperative that extensive studies be undertaken to ensure that any proposed use of drugs will not lead to an increase in health and social problems or even an increase in its availability to minors. It is an area in which government regulation will be required. The status quo simply will not suffice.

The position of the Progressive Conservative Party can be summarized in a quotation from a former Progressive Conservative senator, Duncan Jessiman, who stated:

Making the mere possession and use of drugs a criminal offence has not in any way reduced the use and abuse of drugs. The present system breeds crime. It is imperative that a new approach be found and it is my view that the use and abuse of drugs must be treated as a health problem.

Nevertheless it is obvious that this issue of the medical use of marijuana cannot be addressed without discussion of the problems related to the use of other illicit drugs. The area of bigger, more lethal and more highly addictive narcotics is, in my view, perhaps the area we should be concentrating on most.

The use of drugs in the country is extremely widespread now. I again commend the hon. member for bringing this forward so that we have the opportunity to push this matter on the agenda.

As mentioned, the senate committee is doing a widespread study, arguably in a perhaps less partisan atmosphere. I feel that the commons committee might work with it or at least co-ordinate efforts in such a way that we all could work together for the solutions that we all seek. It certainly merits greater attention. It is certainly an opportunity which the Progressive Conservative Party very much hopes to be a part of.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I want to ask him to develop the theme he raised, which is that we may be going in a slightly different direction than the Americans are. I agree with him very much on this.

In our speeches we both raised the fact that the U.S. supreme court has taken a very different position on the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Last week the justices voted 8 to 0 against allowing it. We have gone in a different direction in this country. I think some 400,000 Canadians have been designated to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. There does seem to be some science that goes with it to suggest that this is a good thing.

In regard to the broader idea of taking a direction that is different from the American direction, I do not want to bring up politics, but the member's party and our party have a different view of free trade. It is my contention that globalization and NAFTA are placing greater impositions from the United States on Canadians and Canadian law.

If we were to go in a significantly different direction than the Americans would appear to be going—and there is nothing to indicate that they are about to decriminalize anything related to so-called soft drugs—I wonder how much latitude we would actually be given as a country. I would be interested in the member's comments on that.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the question. It is something that I quite frankly had not contemplated because I do not see the drug trade as being directly related to free trade, although there are certainly implications whenever a country such as ours, which does so much trade with the United States, takes a radically different policy position. There are inevitable implications of such a move. There are implications on all sorts of issues, including trade.

The United States has very clearly stated by virtue of its supreme court decision and by virtue of the amount of time, resources and effort it puts into drug enforcement, that it will not change any time soon. In fact, statistics show that in the United States the annual cost to the federal, state and municipal levels of government is over $30 billion. This is absolutely staggering when we consider what we spend in this country. Yet what levels of success are the Americans achieving compared to our own?

The approach is obviously important. It is my belief, and I think it is shared by many, including the hon. member, that the focal point should be on the health aspect, not necessarily on going after the small users and those who are using perhaps softer elements of narcotics. There should be a clear dividing line between the suppliers and those who are using these very addictive and very destructive types of drugs that alter a person's life completely and in some cases irretrievably.

I thank the hon. member for his question. It is an important part of the debate to compare both what is happening in other countries and the implications for the approach we might take in the future.