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 narcotie 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.

Community action

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 gen erally, 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.

State if this problem ever arose. But it is clear that existing policy would have to be reviewed in the light of different circumstances and it may not be irrelevant to note that at present addict prisoners in gaol do not receive narcotics.

All this is not to say that no addict in the United Kingdom ever gets a prescription for a narcotic, or a supply of the drug from a doctor, in circumstances where the prescription or the supply is not justified. This can, and on occasion, does happen. Nor are the doctors' motives necessarily improper when it does. Few doctors in the United Kingdom have any real experience of treating drug addicts, and addicts are a notoriously difficult class of patient. Sometimes it undoubtedly happens that doctors, through lack of experience, or occasionally through mistaken kindness, prescribe narcotics for an addict where the conditions laid down by the committee cannot be said to apply. So far as possible. when such cases come to notice, we remind the doctor of his responsibility and of the views of the departmental committee, and try to persuade him to encourage his patient to accept systematic treatment. Until 1953 the dangerousdrug regulations contained a provision empowering the Secretary of State to withdraw the right of a doctor to be in possession of or supply or procure dangerous drugs, if a special medical tribunal set up under the regulations so recommended. This tribunal consisted of 3 medical practioners, 1 being nominated by the General Medical Council, 1 by the British Medical Association, and 1 by the Royal College of Physicians (the London College for cases arising in England and Wales and the Edinburgh College for cases arising in Scotland). There was also a legal assessor. This tribunal was never used in Great Britain throughout its existence, since it was nearly always found possible to deal with an erring practitioner in some other way, either by persuasion, or, more rarely, by depriving him of his authority after a conviction under the act had been obtained.

The disappearance from the current dangerous drugs regulations of 1953 of the provisions relating to the tribunal, did not mean that the body had been dissolved as an act of deliberate policy. I mention this because its disappearance has been misunderstood. The provisions disappeared simply because, when the regulations came to be consolidated in 1953, it was realized that the rules of procedure governing the conduct of cases before the tribunal were badly out of date and inappropriate by modern standards, and it was recognized that the agreement of new rules with the medical profession would take some time. These have in fact now been agreed as regards England and Wales and it is intended to restore the tribunal in that part of the United Kingdom very shortly. Incidentally, a similar tribunal exists in Northern Ireland and this has been used successfully on a number of occasions.

International obligations

In 1931 a Convention for the Limitation of the Manufacture and the Regulation of the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs was drawn up to which both Canada and the United Kingdom are parties. This convention requires parties to limit the quantities of drugs, manufactured or imported, to those fixed in estimate submitted by them to the Permanent Central Opium Board. The convention expressly stipulates that "every estimate furnished * * * so far as it relates to any of the drugs required for domestic consumption in the country or territory in respect of which it is made shall be based solely on the medical and scientific requirements of that country or territory." We in the United Kingdom have always interpreted this requirement as precluding the administration of narcotics to addicts for the mere gratification of addiction. The Government of the United Kingdom felt that this obligation in the 1931 convention was in no way incompatible with their policy based on the departmental committee report on morphine and heroin addiction quoted above.

Treatment of drug addiction

Subject to what has already been said about the need to avoid the mere gratification of addiction, treatment is left in the hands of the medical profession and there is no compulsion of any kind except that on occasion a court attaches to a probation order a condition that an offender addict shall undergo treatment in an institution.

There are no public institutions wholly devoted to the treatment of drug addiction. Addicts can secure treatment in public hospitals and a small number of private nursing homes, most of them primarily concerned with alcoholism, except drug addicts.

There are not and never have been in the United Kingdom drug clinics in the sense in which this phrase is sometimes misused in North America to describe an institution where an addict may receive supplies of a drug either gratis or at a nominal charge.

Conclusion

To sum up dangerous drugs are subjected in the United Kingdom to a wide degree of control of the exacting standard demanded by the international agreements to which, in common with Canada, the United Kingdom is a party. The indiscriminate administration of narcotics to addicts would be incompatible with those obligations and it is not now, and never has been a feature of United Kingdom policy.

Senator STAMBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to the wording on page 10, beginning with the third line, where it says, "It must be further demonstrated that the patient is incapable of leading a useful and relatively normal life." Should that be "capable" or "incapable"?

Mr. WALKER. Incapable, without the drug.

Senator STAMBAUGH. That is, a person is incapable of leading a useful and relatively normal life?

The CHAIRMAN. You think, Senator Stambaugh, when he was reading it, he read it as "capable"?

Senator STAMBAUGH. I think so, yes.

Senator HoWDEN. I think the observation is well taken, because, as a medical practitioner for many long years, I know that a permanent addict cannot work at all without a small supply of the drug. I just know that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. The word "capable" as read by Mr. Walker should be "incapable"?

Senator HODGES. I took it to mean that it must be further demonstrated that a person is incapable of leading a useful and normal life without the drug. Mr. WALKER. That is so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walker will explain that one point.

Mr. WALKER. I think there has been a typing error in the copies you have. The point is, a doctor has a patient before him, and he has to decide a number of things. First, he has to decide how to treat the patient. Secondly, if treating fails, he must be quite satisfied that if the patient gets he drug he can lead a useful and relatively normal life.

His ability to lead a useful and relatively normal life must depend on the administration of small doses of drugs.

Senator STAMBAUGH. You said that some have been able to withdraw?
Mr. WALKER. Oh, yes, certainly.

Senator HowDEN. Gradually, you mean?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEFF. At the bottom of page 8, you deal with circumstances under which a doctor might administer drugs usefully and legally?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEFF. In those cases, what is the obligation on the part of the doctor to make a report to the Home Office?

Mr. WALKER. He is under no obligation at all. We have no regulations in regard to reporting.

Senator HowDEN. Have you any provision for the incarceration of these addiets?

Mr. WALKER. Not as addicts, no. It is only if they commit a crime justifying imprisonment.

Senator HowDEN. If an addict really desires-which is very unusual-to take treatment for his addiction, he can do so only in a hospital?

Mr. WALKEB. Yes, or a nursing home.

Senator LEGER. At his own expense?

Mr. WALKER. No. An addict, like any other person who is ill, is entitled to free hospital services.

Senator HODGES. We have heard it said there are so few drug addicts in the United Kingdom. I think you have quoted a figure of 300.

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Senator HODGES. Does that include the hemp smokers, and also people of Asiatic or Negro origin?

Mr. WALKER. It does not include the hemp smokers; it is addiction only to manufactured drugs.

Senator HODGES. That has given rise to a great deal of speculation. At nearly every meeting we have heard that there are only 300 in the United Kingdom, because of your regulations, but that cannot be taken as indicative of the whole picture.

Mr. WALKER. As far as we can discover, from taking our information from a variety of sources, and checking them with informal soundings from time to time, we are satisfied we have not many more than 300 addicts to the manufactured drugs, that is, the white drugs.

As regards the opium smoker: we have no idea of the number. Judging from statistics of seizures and offenses, the practice is on the decline, and it is almost entiriely amongst the Chinese.

With regard to the hemp smokers; that, we think, is on the increase, because the amount of drugs seized has increased, as has also the number of people convicted.

Senator HODGES. You cannot give even a guess as to the number?

Mr. WALKER. No.

Senator MCINTYRE. Does the drug addict lead a normal life?

Senator How DEN. He never lives a normal life.

Mr. WALKER. That is an important question, Senator. I have come across a small number of cases where the drug addict has been able to support himself and his family and keep out of trouble. If you accept that as the definition of “normal life," I have known cases where addicts have done that. For myself, I do not consider it a "normal life" at all.

Senator HoWDEN. It would be a subnormal life. He can carry on with a small amount of opium, but it is not a normal life. It is a subnormal life.

Mr. WALKER. I think in some cases-but not in all-they do succeed in not being a social burden or a social nuisance. I think that is about all that can be said about it.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say about a case, such as we have here, where a man is leading a life of crime, and requires 10 or 15 grains of narcotics per day, and he goes to a medical man. Would the medical man supply him with what he wants?

Mr. WALKER. I cannot say, because we do not have that problem.

Senator HOWDEN. The hashish and marihuana habit does not cause you much concern?

Mr. WALKER. Only in this sense, that the habit is increasing. It is not a habit any government likes to see practiced in its country. We do not like it to go on. Senator HowDEN. But it is does not present anything like the severity of the symptoms which opium and its derivatives do?

Mr. WALKER. No, Senator.

Senator HODGES. May I ask another question, Mr. Walker?

Mr. WALKER. Certainly, Senator.

Senator HODGES. Would you say where a criminal addict, that is, a criminal who happens to be an addict as well, is committed to jail or prison, is he segregated from the other prisoners? Do you know?

Mr. WALKER. We do not have the "criminal addict" in the sense the honorable Senator is using the words; if an addict prisoner is found to be ill, he is put in the sick bay, but he is given no narcotics, but is given sedation, and is left in the sick bay until his withdrawal is complete.

Senator HODGES. You do not segregate them during the whole time?
Mr. WALKER. No.

Senator HowDEN. You are satisfied the degree of opium addiction is not sufficient to warrant providing for incarcerating these addicts alone?

Mr. WALKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. LIEFF. How many doctors are there in Britain, Mr. Walker?

Mr. WALKER. I think about 40,000.

Mr. LIEFF. On the basis of 1 doctor reporting 1 addict, that would leave 300 doctors, prescribing for the addicts about whom you know.

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEFF. Would that indicate that the balance of 39,700 doctors would not be treating anybody?

Mr. WALKER. I am quite certain that a vast majority of doctors in the United Kingdom have never seen a drug addict in their whole practice, except when they have had occasion to administer narcotics legitimately for some other condition, and where, in case of prolonged treatment, a person becomes addicted. Outside of that, I do not think they have ever seen a case of addiction.