SNUD Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
A Supplementary Report We brought a motion into the House of Commons on May 17, 2001 that was unanimously adopted by all parties. This motion enabled Parliament to study “ the factors underlying or relating to non-medical use of drugs in Canada.” We had sincerely hoped that our country would benefit from a thorough and unbiased study since one hasn’t occurred since 1972; it was well overdue. We have been impressed with the attentiveness to the matter by a majority of members of the committee (with the notable exception being the member of the Progressive Conservative party who only briefly attended three of our meetings in Ottawa, and none of our site visits across the country or abroad), however we are concerned with some of the final recommendations to the issue. Consequently we are submitting this supplementary report in order that our apprehension concerning a proposed National Drug Strategy, or lack thereof, is made known. First, we are quite appalled that the Government has disregarded the fact that we have spent almost $500,000 studying drugs on this committee as well as undergoing cross-country consultations on this issue for the past 18 months. Unfortunately, no less than three ministers have established policy directions without once consulting us. Let us quote just some of their statements… “Canada’s pot laws make no sense and should be liberalized” Justice minister Martin Cauchon, Toronto Star, Sept. 2002 “We’re in the process, Ms Mohamed said. “The minister, by the end of this year, will be able to accept proposals (for safe injection sites)” Farah Mohamed, spokesperson for Health Minister “We will do everything we can to facilitate pilots in cities across the country if those cities decide this is part of the strategy that they want” Allan Rock, Federal Health Minister, National Post, Nov. 2001 These ministers have inappropriately pre-empted the committees’ report. It is interesting to note that the very departments [Health Canada and Justice/Solicitor General] that are giving advice to these ministers are the worst performing departments in the country as far as efficiency and effectiveness towards a National Drug Strategy. This fact is born out of the committees’ research. Now we see the Liberal Health minister is promoting both safe shoot up sites and heroin maintenance programs that will supplement needle exchanges, yet she will not even provide diabetics with free needles. One wonders how “Heroin Maintenance Treatment” trials, set to be undertaken in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, which is assisting an individual to shoot drugs into themselves, is in any way solving the problem? If the Minister had taken the time to wait for the results from the committee, we are confident it would have offered her a more balanced view of the issue that her department is providing. Encouraging and supporting addicts to use needles to shoot drugs into themselves is nothing short of aiding in the death of another human and a reprehensible action of a government Minister to endorse that action, in particular without even asking the government’s special committee its position. Inherent in the committees’ report is the issue and acceptance of the idea of “harm reduction”. We would more appropriately call this “harm extension”, a description that has been confirmed by numerous witnesses over the past 18 months. “Harm reduction” by its very nature dismisses the basic premise that substance abuse is effectively treated through abstinence, detox and rehabilitation and essentially says, “We give up, let’s encourage use — but make it clean use ”. We clearly understand that the debate on this issue of abstinence and harm reduction will go on for some time yet, however; it is incumbent upon those of us in Canada who are concerned with the concept of “harm reduction” to express it. It is vital that those reading this report understand the issue of “Pilot Projects” as the Health Minister has begun to undertake. The following quote was written down by Randy White, at the time of a meeting of the committee in Frankfurt, Germany ….. “ the vision of legalization of drugs must be taken one pilot project at a time — not all at once“ Dr. Korner This, to us, needs no further comment. There is no commitment requested or contained in this report to encourage the building or enhancement of rehabilitation centers with or without residence. If a pilot project is good enough for safe injection sites or heroin maintenance, then why not a pilot project to develop Detox and Rehabilitation Centers? Indeed there is a substantial denial of responsibility at all three levels of government. It is impractical to move toward some concept called “harm reduction” before such a commitment towards detox and rehabilitation is made and proven not to work. Recommendation 15, in the report, is one of those issues that looks quite simple when you first look at it. The concept of “low threshold” means ask no questions — just accommodate. Let’s look at a common case. An addict walks into a safe shoot up site with bad drugs [impure and more lethal than normal] and no one asks questions. The results are potentially lethal, no contact is made with medical people and the person is essentially on their own. We do not see this as a responsible position and cannot be supported. Recommendation 19, of the report, is another of those issues that asks the question of what, in the future, is “substitution treatment”? To date we would acknowledge that methadone is an alternative treatment even though many say it also is very addictive. The fact that it is able to be consumed by drink and not injected by needles seems to be its saving grace. The fact remains that we want assurances that “substitutes” in the term substitution treatment are well researched, socially and medically acceptable and not a continuation of “harm extension” before we concur with an open ended recommendation. We in Canada must consider the position of those who say the provision of “prescribed heroin” would be considered a “substitute for “on the street heroin”. Recommendation 20 is particularly troubling. Proposed projects for heroin-assisted treatment isn’t even “substitution treatment”. These projects advocate legally permitting heroin being injected into people, which is a concept we cannot concur with. Recommendations 21 and 23 suggest removing legislative barriers which is to really say that we will remove the laws that stop the open drug trade that exists, in fact, what it does is make the hard drug trade legal. Police must turn their back to possession which is currently against the law. How can we put addicts above the law? It will be all too soon when individuals and groups in other parts of the country will be challenging, in court, their right to shoot up in various places they call “safe” because others inject legally elsewhere thus, the beginning of legalized drugs as Dr. Korner predicts. Recommendation 31 is a preposterous recommendation. We cannot permit inmates to have access to needles, through needle exchanges simply because it is dangerous for guards and for other inmates as well. How does this fit into the concept of “zero” tolerance for drugs in prison? If any place in Canada should practice abstinence it should be the prison system. Other methods of substitutes or “harm reduction” cannot include needle exchanges, heroin maintenance or safe injection in prison. Many of the issues reflected in this supplementary report will affect the border relationship with the United States and although we are our own country, we should not put harmful social policy in place before we discuss it with our neighbor. This concept of “harm reduction” will lead to a “magnet” approach to those areas who have safe injection sites and will encourage addicted Americans and others to relocate to Canada as has happened in Europe. We currently have a refugee application in Canada from an individual claiming to avoid “persecution” [not prosecution] from American drug laws. We do not need American concurrence but we do need their co-operation. We had also wanted the main theme of the document to state that “ABSTINENCE IS THE BEST POLICY” however, the committee majority did not want that. We believe that parents, addicts and responsible citizens around the world would agree to this statement and wonder why anyone on the committee would want otherwise. In conclusion, we believe this committee has worked together in a positive manner and that most of the recommendations contained in this report will begin to make positive changes in regards to the ongoing drug problem in this country. A viable framework now exists to create a National Drug Strategy that will have its greatest effect at street level, however …… We are extremely concerned that the Liberal government has already adopted the “harm reduction” model of Europe which is proving to be a failure (because it maintains drug addicts on drugs) while at the same time ignoring our north American partners of the United States and Mexico who are moving in significant directions of intervention, education, rehabilitation and treatment based upon abstinence. Canada does this at it’s own social peril. It must be remembered this report on the national drug problem is not the recommendations of one stakeholder, or even 13 Members of Parliament. These are the combined voices of thousands of victims, enforcement officers, drug users, social workers and health care professionals, collected in hundreds of meetings across the country — as well as in the United States and Europe. We urge this government to listen the voices of those who are effected daily by this problem, and make the changes necessary to create a truly effective National Drug Strategy. |