Page images
PDF
EPUB

EXHIBIT No. 15

No. 63

MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENAte of CanaDA

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1955.

The Honorable ARTHUR L. BEAUBIEN, Speaker pro tem

Excerpts from the report of a special committee composed of 23 senators on the traffic in narcotic drugs in Canada.

Extent of addiction

Commissioner Nicholson, in discussing the results of a study made of 2,009 criminal addicts, stated that only 341 of this number were first convicted under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1,220 were first convicted first for some other offense, and the balance of 478 were addicts with criminal records other than narcotic drug convictions. As was explained by the commissioner, of the 2,009 cases studied, 1,668 involved people who were very probably criminals before they were addicts.

Treatment proposals

Suggestions for treatment ranged all the way from the legal supply of drugs to the total segregation of all criminal addicts. The committee considered proposals to alleviate the drug problem that was submitted to it. These proposals included such matters as (a) the removal and segregation of all convicted addicts to an institution, far removed from any area of general population, preferably on an island, for long periods of time, coupled with some system of parole, where rehabilitation was indicated; (b) establishment of a treatment center far removed from cities, with provisions for compulsory confinement or isolation and control of an addict over a number of years, such an institution should emphasize mental care, complete rehabilitation and training for useful occupation; (c) provision for withdrawal treatment in general hospitals, establishment of a rehabilitation residence for men, foster home care for women; (d) narcotic clinics; (e) the British system; (f) community action; (g) education; (h) group therapy, such as is carried on by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.

The committee in making special reference to certain of these proposals also commends for careful study the evidence of those witnesses who spoke on the question of the treatment of drug addicts.

Narcotic clinics

The committee heard considerable evidence with respect to narcotic clinics and ambulatory treatment. The vast preponderance of responsible evidence on this subject, both oral and written, leads the committee to conclude that the establishment of such clinics or the provision of any other legalized supply of drugs for the purpose merely of supporting addiction would be a retrograde step. The committee is therefore strongly of the opinion that the narcotic drug problem cannot be solved by the creation of Government clinics where addicts could obtain their supplies.

The committee unanimously rejects any proposal designed to provide legal supplies of drugs to criminal addicts. The committee was supported in this decision by evidence that the Narcotic Drug Commission of the United Nations at its tenth session has resolved that "in the treatment of drug addiction methods of ambulatory treatment (including the so-called clinic method) are not advisable." British system

The committee heard frequent reference to the so-called British system and various witnesses urged its adoption in Canada. Consequently the committee arranged to obtain firsthand information about the law pertaining to narcotic drugs in the United Kingdom. It was privileged to hear a comprehensive state

ment from Mr. J. H. Walker, United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Narcotic Commission. Mr. Walker explained the law relating to dangerous drugs in detail. He stated that dangerous (narcotic) drugs in the United Kingdom are subject to a wide degree of control of the exacting standards demanded by the intermnational agreements to which the United Kingdom, in common with Canada, is a party. He also told the committee that the indiscriminate administration of narcotic drugs to addicts is not now, and never has been, a feature of United Kingdom policy. A perusal of Mr. Walker's evidence would be most valuable to anyone interested in the British system.

The committee was also privileged to hear evidence on this subject from Dr. A. W. MacLeod, assistant director, Montreal Hygiene Institutee and assistant professor of psychiatry, McGill University. Dr. MacLeod had experience in the treatment of drug addicts in Britain gained while he was assistant director of an in-patient psychiatric unit attached to one of the training hospitals at London University. He stated that the dangerous drug inspectorate of the British Home Office was strongly opposed to any line of action that would allow a known addict to continue his addiction.

From the evidence it appears that there never has been a serious drug problem in the United Kingdom, and that the situation there is not comparable with that of Canada.

Education

The committee considered the question of education against the use of narcotic drugs and is of the opinion that while educational programs may usefully be established for professional groups, for parent-teacher associations, and for adult groups generally, such program should not be used where they would arouse undue curiosity on the part of impressionable persons or those of tender years. The committee's view is supported by the Narcotic Committee of the United Nations who recommend against any such educational program. Lecture material especially prepared by the Division of Narcotic Control and containing information respecting the economic and social factors of drug addiction has been presented regularly to medical and pharmaceutical associations, schools of nursing, and undergraduate societies in colleges of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing. This form of education should be continued.

The committee recommends the improvement and expansion of mental-health programs in our schools in the hope that variations from acceptable behavior may be detected and treated before the opportunity for addiction to drugs has been presented.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Any successful program for the prevention and treatment of drug addiction will require concerted community social action to remove from our cities those areas in which drugs are available, to provide adequate opportunity for youth and the emotional, social atmosphere which follows general rehabilitation efforts on behalf of treated drug addicts. There is an urgent need for communities to make concerted all-out efforts to eradicate conditions that breed drug addiction. By the same token such groups as PTA, church groups, welfare councils, schools, hospitals, police, recreational bodies, and employers and the public generally, will need to use their joint and several skills to readjust the lives of former addicts in order to again fit them into an ordered society. The importance of this is emphasized in the recommendations that are made in this report for a treatment program.

Pattern of drug addiction

The committee heard evidence from many expert and qualified witnesses concerning the kind of people who make up the criminal addict population of Canada, something of their background and, in addition, the committee saw a large number of these people. Their sordid pattern of development shows a considerable degree of similarity.

There is frequently evidence of broken homes, poor environment, lack of parental control and discipline, and the absence of religious training. This background leads to social deviation, juvenile delinquency, crime, and eventually to drug addiction through association with other drug addicts.

The evidence of medical authorities was to the effect that drug addiction is not a disease in itself. It is a symptom or manifestation of character weakness or personality defects in the individual. The addict is usually an emotionally insecure and unstable person who derives support from narcotic drugs.

The committee was gravely concerned to learn that relatively few cases could be authenticated where drug addicts, while out of custody, had been successful in abstaining from the use of drugs for any lengthy period of time.

The complications and difficulties in the successful treatment of drug addic tion, having regard to the pattern of development of the addict and his almost invariable criminal tendencies, cannot be too heavily stressed.

[blocks in formation]

Treatment of addiction a provincial responsibility

After a most careful and exhaustive examination of the evidence and of all the factors involved in treatment, the committee is strongly of the opinion that the recognition of drug addiction as a treatment responsibility, with the provision of facilities therefor by provincial authorities, is long overdue.

The committee in pointing out the responsibility of provincial authorities for treatment, does not minimize the difficulties that are presented nor the fact that a great number of drug addicts offer little or no promise for successful treatment. These difficulties would not in the opinion of the committee justify the continued failure to provide treatment procedures and facilities.

[blocks in formation]

The evidence of many witnesses recommended the compulsory segregation and isolation of all addicts for long periods of time for the purpose of treatment and possible rehabilitation.

By using its constitutional powers, any province could pass the necessary legislation providing for the committal, on a compulsory or voluntary basis, of drug addicts to an appropriate treatment institution in the same manner as is being done now for those in need of treatment for a mental condition.

In considering the various suggestions for treatment, it will be appreciated that the majority of addicts not only have known criminal records, but have as well, character disorders, or personality disturbances which will require institutional treatment. Evidence about proposed treatment indicated that such treatment should include humane, supported withdrawal, medical treatment postdischarge control, including long-term probation, coupled with the right of immediate return to the institution in the event of relapse.

It was also submitted that if treatment cannot be provided for all addiets, an effort should be made to treat at least the young ones, or those whose prognosis is good. It appears necessary to segregate young addicts from older addicts. In commenting upon the responsibility of provincial authorities for the treatment of drug addiction, the committee again stresses the need for community and public support of an addict who has undergone treatment and who desires to reestablish himself in society. It is apparent to the committee that institu tional treatment can do only so much for an addicted person.

The committee draws attention to the evidence of a number of witnesses wh strongly advocated the need for followup and supervisory facilities for addie's who had undergone treatment, to prevent a return to drugs or to former bai associates or habits.

Federal responsibility

As has been pointed out, the responsibility of the Federal Government by N legislation is limited to the legal distribution of narcotic drugs for medical at scientific purposes and the suppression of the illicit use and distribution « those drugs. These measures are necessary for the protection of society.

The committee points out that it is not within the constitutional authorit of the Federal Government to assume responsibility for treatment of drug ad dicts nor to enact the kind of legislation necessary in that connection. This legislation would need to include the compulsory treatment of addiction, the legal supervision and control over the individual during treatment, and the right of control of an individual following treatment to prevent his return!. the use of drugs, former associations, or habits. These are considered to be matters beyond the competence of the Federal Government.

According to the evidence of Dr. L. P. Gendreau, Deputy Commissioner of Penitentiaries, there are at the present time 369 criminal addicts in Federal penitentiaries. These include both male and female criminal addicts.

It is pointed out that the kind of people who are sentenced to penitentiaries, for the most part, have a long and sordid record of crime behind them. These people are criminals from whom society is entitled to be protected. Their violations of the law coupled with their criminal backgrounds are such as to require their imprisonment for lengthy periods of time. It follows, therefore, that any possibility for treatment of addicts who are sentenced to penitentiaries will offer considerably less hope than would be the case of the early offender or the addict beginner. The best hope of successful treatment of a number of people who eventually come to the attention of the penitentiary authorities would seem to lie in early rehabilitative and corrective measures.

The committee appreciates the difficult problem presented by the kind of criminal addicts who are sentenced to penitentiaries. The committee, however, suggests that the penitentiary authorities might give further consideration to the particular problems presented by criminal addicts in terms of possible segregation, treatment including specialized training and rehabilitation and other measures necessary in view of the special problems which addiction superimposes.

Penalties for trafficking

*

It is the considered opinion of the committee that the most effective way of taking the profit out of the drug traffic is by making all trafficking, in terms of penalties, a most hazardous and costly undertaking to the trafficker.

The nonaddict trafficker, who is sometimes referred to as the "higher up" must depend upon a large number of agents or distributors to peddle the drugs which he imports but with which he seldom comes into contact. The imposition of heavy compulsory minimum sentences for trafficking is suggested as a deterrent to these hireling peddlers or pushers of the higher up. If the higher up is not able to find a ready supply of assistants to distribute drugs to the addict population the availability of drugs to addicts may be reduced to a possible minimum.

The committee considers that the penalties for trafficking, regardless of purpose, motive, or amount irrespective of whether the trafficker is or is not an addict, should be made more severe, with a compulsory lengthy minimum sentence and an increased minimum for a second or subsequent offense and possibly a maximum of life imprisonment.

In advocating the increase of penalties the committee intends that this should serve as a clear warning to all who are addicted that if they engage in the distribution of drugs in any quantity for any purpose and regardless of their motives, they can expect to be dealt with as traffickers and given heavy penalties. It is the considered view of the committee that this will act as an effective deterrent to a large number of drug addicts who might be tempted to assist in distribution and with their elimination as distributors the problem of the higher up in getting rid of his drugs is made more difficult.

In advocating more severe and increased penalties for trafficking with a compulsory minimum, the committee does not do so in criticism of the length of sentences that have ordinarily been meted out to traffickers. The committee does so having regard to the elimination of street distributors, the discouragement of addicts to engage in the trafficking or transporting of drugs. There will thus be a clear and unequivocal warning to all addicts of the consequences which they can expect if they choose for any reason to become involved in the distribution of drugs.

Heavy penalties and intensified enforcement against street drug peddlers are therefore strongly urged, and in this way the committee believes that the heavy profit motive will most effectively be taken out of the drug trafficking. TOM REID, Chairman.

71515-56-pt. 5- -36

EXHIBIT No. 16

THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NARCOTIC DRUG TRAFFIC

Ottawa, Tuesday, May 17, 1955

EVIDENCE

The Special Committee on the Narcotic Drug Traffic met this day at 10:30 a. m. Senator Reid in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Honorable Senators, we have a quorum. It is half past 10, and I think we should get started.

We have with us this morning Mr. John H. Walker, of Great Britain, who has just come here from the United Nations. He is a delegate from Great Britain to the United Nations Narcotic Commission, and has kindly agreed to come here today and give us a few words regarding the British system.

Mr. A. H. LIEFF. Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, may I say that Mr. Walker has been the representative of the United Kingdom for the last four sessions, at the United Nations. He was the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the opium conference held in New York City, in 1953, and is Assistant Secretary in the British Home Office.

Mr. JOHN H. WALKER. Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, I would like to thank your committee for the honor done me by extending this invitation to come and speak to you here in Ottawa. It is a very great pleasure to be back in your capital city, which I first saw some 2 years ago, and it is a great honor, by United Kingdom standards, at any rate, for civil servants to address members of the legislature. That is not the common practice back home, and to that extent it is even a greater privilege than it might be here, and one for which I am very grateful. I have been asked to speak about the use of dangerous drugs in the United Kingdom.

Origins

The abuse of dangerous drugs occurs in the United Kingdom on a comparatively limited scale. By dangerous drugs I mean those drugs colloquially known in North America as narcotics, namely opium, many of its derivatives such as morphine and heroin and their synthetic analogs such as demorol and methadone, Indian hemp (marihuana) and cocaine. There are well known references in 19th century classical authors to the abuse of opiates in the United Kingdom, but Her Majesty's Government first became concerned with drug addiction as a colonial, not a domestic, problem. It was not until the First World War, when narcotics, and in particular cocaine, began to be peddled in London that special legislation (which took the form of a wartime defense regulation) was thought to be necessary.

Even then the regulations took the form of wartime defense regulations, that is to say, the sort of regulations we adopt in wartime, as an expedient to deal with what was thought to be a purely wartime problem.

The creation of the League of Nations, and in particular of the Opium Committee of that body, led to the widespread adoption of a number of international conventions on the control of narcotic drugs (including the 1912 Hague Convention which the First World War made abortive for several years), and it is on the requirements of these conventions rather than on any domestic problem that United Kingdom legislation is based. Canada of course is a party to these conventions and it therefore follows that the systems of control in our two countries are necessarily based on the same principles, despite variations in the machinery for their enforcement arising largely out of constitutional and geographical differences. It is probably true to say that the Canadian system of control is slightly more detailed than our own.

Legislation and enforcement

The Minister responsible for the administration of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1951 in Great Britain is the Secretary of State for the Home Department (known as the Home Secretary).

He is responsible in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales, and has certain responsibilities regarding Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is autonomous as regards internal control, but not as regards international trade. I mention

« PreviousContinue »