June 7, 1961


John Whitney Pickersgill


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take part in this debate at all, but because I am assured by my hon. friends who have shown particular interest in this legislation that if this were put to a vote it would be their intention to vote for the bill. In view of the repeated appeals from the government to the effect that it would like to expedite the work of this session, and in view of that assurance, I hope the minister will not persist in taking up the time of the house in an attempt to get a unanimous vote. Of course he is perfectly within his rights in doing that, but we are anxious to get on with other legislation. I repeat that assurance on the part of my hon. friends in order to save the time of the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):

Mr. Speaker, my intervention at this stage will be brief, but I should like to point out to the house that in 1958 and 1959 this problem in respect of goof balls was of considerable interest to the people of my own riding of Halifax, and representations were made, through the hon. members for Halifax, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare at that time. Perhaps we can not claim paternity for this legislation, as do the hon. members for Outremont and Essex East, but at least we are well within the family circle of those who helped bring this serious matter to the understanding attention of the minister concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate whether what he said a moment ago also applies to the hon. member for Essex East?


John Whitney Pickersgill


Mr. Pickersgill:

Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted the hon. member for Essex East but have consulted those of my friends who are present, and believe I speak on behalf of all my friends. I should not like to think there was any difference in respect to the hon. member for Essex East.


Jacques Flynn (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:


Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-104, to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Flynn in the chair. On clause 1-1955, c. 48, s. 1.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets


Mr. Deschalelels:

Mr. Chairman, there is only one point in respect to which I should like the minister to comment. During the minister's remarks last evening he mentioned having discussed the situation in respect of judges with the Attorneys General of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the minister reported having received representations from the chief justice of that province. Could the minister now say whether he has discussed the situation regarding judges with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, and does the minister not think that representations by the chief justice of a province should be made directly to the attorney general of that province rather than to the Minister of Justice?


Edmund Davie Fulton (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Chairman, the situation here is that over a year ago the legislature of the province of Quebec provided for 5 additional judges in the Montreal district. That legislation is on the statute books and has not been rescinded by the legislature of the province of Quebec at the instigation of the present government of that province or otherwise. I take it, therefore, as I think I am entitled to, that this legislation represents the view of the government of the province.

Narcotic Drugs Control

The effect of that legislation is that there are still two judicial positions in the Montreal district for which this parliament has not provided salaries. I have had no indication from the Attorney General of Quebec that he does not agree with the view of the legislature of that province which previously expressed the opinion that there should be five more judges in the Montreal district.

I do quite naturally and properly have communications from time to time with the chief justice, formerly the associate chief justice, of the province of Quebec, just as I have with the chief justices of other provinces, with respect to the positions of judges for whom there are vacancies on the bench. For instance, when a vacancy occurs by death I frequently hear from the chief justice concerned if he feels that I should be informed that there is a heavy work load and thinks he should indicate to me that it would be appreciated if the appointment were made as quickly as possible or in other matters affecting the appointment of judges for whom positions already exist. In the course of the exchanges I have had with the chief justice of the superior court the impression I received has definitely been that there is a continuing requirement for the appointment of the judges to fill the vacancies which the legislature has provided.


Clause agreed to. Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported and read the third time and passed.



Jay Waldo Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved

the second reading of Bill No. C-100, to provide for the control of narcotic drugs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether we might call it one o'clock, but I also wondered whether it would be agreeable to the other parties if in moving second reading of this bill I were to speak to part I having to do with the general purposes of the bill, and then be followed by the Minister of Justice, who will speak in some detail on part II of the bill. I wonder whether this procedure might be followed after 2.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill


Mr. Pickersgill:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was consulted privately about this matter. So far as we are concerned we think this would be a sensible arrangement, so the debate could take place after both ministers have exposed

Narcotic Drugs Control the government's position on the bill. I think I can speak for all my hon. friends when I say we are quite agreeable to the suggestion.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


AFTER RECESS The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Jay Waldo Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Monteith (Perth):

Mr. Speaker, in

moving second reading of the narcotic control act I thought hon. members might be interested in having a short review of the development not only of this particular measure but also of Canada's participation in the field of international narcotic control. The medical use of opium, which until relatively recent times has constituted the most widely known narcotic, can be traced back for many thousands of years. Records dating 7000 B.C. make reference to the use of opium for the relief of pain. Opium is the coagulated juice of the opium poppy which botanically is described as pap aver somniferum. It is distinguishable from the ordinary garden or Flanders variety of poppy which is grown for decorative purposes.

In a number of far eastern countries the opium poppy has traditionally represented an important agricultural crop. Of recent years, however, countries that at one time produced opium have discontinued its cultivation. Indeed, at the moment there are only some 12 to 15 countries that permit the growing of this plant. The major producing countries at the present time are India and Turkey. Several other countries produce small quantities but these are generally for their own consumption. Unfortunately there exists a substantial amount of illicit cultivation and it is from the illicit sources that the underworld criminal traffic in narcotic drugs is supplied.

It is the aim of the international agencies, with international co-operation, to attempt to limit to legitimate medical needs the world's supply of opium. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century opium was the best known and most effective pain killer. At that time morphine, which is a derivative of opium, was produced in Germany. Later on another derivative, namely, codeine, was produced, and in 1898 a further derivative, which became known as heroin, was developed from this natural source.

Ironically, heroin, which is now regarded as the most powerful and the most dangerous of all narcotics, was developed as a miracle pain killer with all of the virtues of an opiate but without any of its recognizable dangers. Within a very few years, however, the real potential of heroin was recognized and today

its use has virtually disappeared from modern medical practice everywhere in the world. Unfortunately it remains as the major narcotic of addiction in North America, and so long as there exists the illicit cultivation of opium there will exist a source from which illicit heroin can be manufactured to support the underworld criminal traffic.

Recognition of this fact is of great importance because of recent years medical reliance on opium has diminished and there have been developed a number of synthetic substances which can meet the therapeutic uses of opium but with less danger to the individuals than its derivatives. The authorities predict that the time may well come in the not too distant future when opium as a source of narcotic medication will substantially disappear and will be replaced wholly by synthetic substances chemically produced.

While opium was for many thousand years recognized and used in medical practice, it was also known and used to produce a state of euphoria or a sense of happiness and wellbeing. The dangers from addiction to opium while known were not legally suppressed until shortly after the turn of the present century when a number of the countries of the world commenced to take steps to control the use of this substance. International recognition of its dangers was first given at the Shanghai conference in 1909 and the principles agreed to at that time were embodied three years later in the narcotic convention signed at The Hague. This document, which is known as The Hague convention, marks the cornerstone in the foundation of international narcotic control. Since then there have been a number of narcotic treaties or conventions developed to deal not only with opium but with other drugs which also have narcotic properties and in particular the synthetic drugs.

Hon. members will, I am sure, be gratified to learn that Canada is one of the very few countries of the world that is a signatory to all existing narcotic conventions. Since the dangers of narcotics became internationally recognized, Canada has taken a leading part in the development of international control and Canadian legislation together with its enforcement have for a long time been regarded as amongst the most far-sighted and far-seeing of its kind by countries recognizing the narcotic problem.

It is with very special pride I now refer to Canadian participation in the recently concluded conference of plenipotentiaries at the United Nations in New York called to adopt a single convention to replace the nine existing multiple and multilateral treaties. This conference was indeed one of historic importance because it followed some 10 years of

deliberation and discussion by narcotic experts in proposing a document which took into account all aspects of narcotic control as presently developed and which, at the same time, made provision for the future. I am happy to be able to say that Canada, which not only played an active and important role in the conference, is now taking the necessary steps to be in a position, subject to the approval of parliament, to ratify that convention. The convention requires ratification by 40 parties to come into force. When this takes place the convention will replace existing narcotic treaties and will mark the commencement of a new era in the field of international narcotic control.

In referring to the active part taken at the conference by the Canadian delegation, it is fitting to mention that the head of our delegation was Mr. Robert Curran, the legal adviser to the Department of National Health and Welfare, who has also been very active in the development of the measure now before the house. As a mark of recognition of Canada's role at the conference, he was elected chairman of the main drafting committee responsible for the production of the text of the convention itself.

As I have mentioned, Canada's domestic legislation and its enforcement have long been regarded as amongst the most effective and realistic of any country in the world. In submitting the measure which is now before hon. members, I am glad to be able to say that it marks still further recognition of the steps which Canada regards as appropriate to take in dealing with the problem of the narcotic traffic and narcotic addiction. Canada, from the outset of its approach to the control of narcotics, has recognized that legislation to be effective must take into account two factors: The first, and the one which is frequently overlooked in referring to narcotics, is the necessity that the legislation must be such as will ensure that narcotics continue to be available for legitimate medical and scientific use. The other, and this has largely overshadowed the importance of the legitimate use of narcotics, relates to effective and vigorous enforcement to eliminate the narcotic traffic and its companion evil, narcotic addiction.

Narcotic legislation in Canada has traditionally been the responsibility of the health ministry, with its criminal enforcement the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In this connection, it is not only timely but appropriate to pay public tribute to the continued efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the war which it has waged on the narcotic traffic. The members of that force who are engaged in narcotic

Narcotic Drugs Control control work have demonstrated their dedication to the elimination of the evil and unwholesome traffic in narcotics. Inasmuch as persons so engaged must work under a cloak of anonymity, it is very fitting that I should, in introducing a measure that has been developed with their support and cooperation, pay public tribute to them.

I should now like to say a word with respect to the development of the measure which is before us. In 1955, an investigation was made by a special committee of the Senate into the narcotic traffic in Canada. In June of that year, the committee handed down its report which contained a number of recommendations relating to special measures for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotics. In 1957 a measure described as Bill D was introduced in the Senate which wholly revised the existing narcotic legislation and implemented substantially the recommendations contained in the Senate report. This bill was passed in the Senate and was given first reading in this house before parliament dissolved in the spring of 1957.

The reintroduction of that measure has been delayed pending further study and investigation of the narcotic problem in Canada and particularly of measures which might effectively be proposed for the treatment of narcotic addicts who are undergoing imprisonment for narcotic offences. The measure which is now introduced reflects very substantially the subject matter and content of the former measure but with a number of important changes which, in the light of experience, are considered desirable. In addition, the measure contains in part II special provisions relating to the control of narcotic addicts for the purpose of treatment.

In my explanation of this bill, I will not attempt however, to deal with those portions which are contained in part II because they involve matters which will be wholly within the area of responsibility of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) as relating to the penitentiary system and the national parole service. While these matters will be dealt with in detail by the Minister of Justice, I might say at this time that the provisions in question set out special procedures for the control of narcotic addicts who are convicted of offences under the act and will, therefore, be subject to the jurisdiction of the penitentiary authorities and of the national parole service.

While the control of the misuse or abuse of narcotics is an essential purpose of the legislation, a more important purpose lies in the control provisions which are designed to ensure the availability of narcotics for legitimate medical and scientific use in the

Narcotic Drugs Control alleviation of pain and suffering and the treatment of disease. So well controlled has been the legal use of narcotics in Canada that this most important feature has tended to be overlooked, and the emphasis given to the dramatic aspects of the continual war against the underworld traffic.

I have previously touched upon Canada's role in international narcotic control. I can assure hon. members that this measure implements in every particular all of the obligations and undertakings which are involved in our international relations and, in particular, in the convention which has recently been concluded in this important area.

As I have mentioned, the subject matter of Bill D which was prepared a few years ago has not been overlooked and it has provided a basis for the present bill. In addition, however, we have endeavoured to reflect in it the experience gained since that time, as well as providing a new procedure which it is hoped will cope more effectively with the problem of narcotic addiction than has been attempted in the past.

In preparing this bill, we have examined the laws of other countries to ensure that Canada's narcotic legislation will continue to rank amongst the best in the world and that it will not suffer by comparison with any other narcotic legislation nor lack anything which will lead to a more effective accomplishment of this purpose.

This bill, which completely revises the present law, does not change its basic policy or purpose. Structurally it represents a different approach to the control of the problem. Apart from removing a number of anomalies in the present legislation, and deleting provisions which are now archaic, it separates the criminal enforcement aspects from the legal distributing aspects. The latter will now be covered entirely by the regulations. This is regarded as an important change because it gives to the distribution and availability of narcotic drugs a desirable flexibility and will permit of effective changes being made as time and experience may indicate. This, of course, is apart altogether from the provisions of part II which deal entirely with the control and custody of narcotic addicts for the purpose of treatment. The bill reflects and recognizes the realities of the narcotic situation, not only as it exists today but as it may be expected to develop in the foreseeable future.

Hon. members will note a change in the title of the legislation. I have mentioned the diminishing importance of opium and it was not thought desirable that the use of this particular substance should be perpetuated in the title. The word "narcotic" which is incapable of precise definition does however

have a widely recognized generic meaning and it was therefore thought desirable to reemphasize this in the title of the bill itself.

As I have mentioned, part I, which is the part for which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible, has two aspects, the first being the enforcement and the second the legal distribution of narcotics in accordance with the regulations.

Possession except as authorized by the act or the regulations continues to be an offence. Here an important change is made from the present act which provides for a mandatory minimum penalty of six months for the offence of possession.

The bill provides for a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment, which is the same as the present act but, except as is provided in part II in the case of proven narcotic addicts, does not impose any mandatory minimum. In the case of narcotic addicts, the procedure of part II provides for a sentence of custody for the purpose of treatment for an indeterminate period. This involves matters which will more appropriately be spoken to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).

With regard to trafficking, no change is made in the substantive offences which are established. These are of two kinds, the first related to traffic which is defined in the act, and the second to possession for the purpose of trafficking. An important change is, however, made in the penalty provisions.

The report of the Senate committee recommended that trafficking, regardless of its purpose, should be made a costly and hazardous undertaking in terms of a penalty. While the Senate committee did recommend that there be mandatory minimums for second or subsequent offences for trafficking, it was the view of the enforcement authorities that a more effective deterrent would lie in the increase of the maximum penalty and that the courts should be empowered to impose within the framework of a lengthy maximum what might be an appropriate penalty for trafficking.

The sentence which may be imposed has been raised to life imprisonment. In this way parliament will have indicated clearly the seriousness with which it regards trafficking offences and the courts can, therefore, take cognizance of this in fixing appropriate penalties.

This, of course, is again subject to the provisions of part II which make provision for a sentence of preventive detention for subsequent convictions for trafficking and for custody for treatment for an indeterminate period the case of addict traffickers. This, however, is a matter which the Minister of

Justice will more properly deal with in explaining the purposes of part II.

I should like to say a special word with respect to section 5 which establishes a new type of offence. Our experience has shown that with the control measures over the legal importation and distribution of narcotics, there is no diversion from legal sources into illicit traffic. Narcotics used in the illicit traffic are smuggled for that purpose into Canada. If it were not for the illicit importation of narcotics, there would be no trafficking problem and, correspondingly, no problem of narcotic addiction. The Senate committee, recognizing this, recommended the establishment of a special offence of illicit importation with an effective mandatory minimum penalty.

There can be no possible excuse or justification for the illicit smuggling of narcotics into this country and the legislation properly recognizes this evil in establishing a special offence against illicit importation with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment but with a mandatory minimum of seven years.

Unfortunately, in dealing with the illicit importation of narcotics, it is seldom that the enforcement authorities come in contact with the hierarchy of international traffickers. The negotiations are arranged by those persons but the actual carriage of narcotics from abroad into North America is almost invariably entrusted to subordinates or paid hirelings. These people may be addicted but as a rule are not. Usually they are engaged in smuggling purely for financial profit and it is therefore felt that the most effective way of deterring persons from this type of transaction is to make the offence of smuggling a costly one.

The bill contains an additional offence of illicit exportation and it may seem to hon. members that there is a contradiction if narcotics are not produced in Canada. The international trafficker is not as a rule concerned with geography but only with a market. North America is a victim area and, depending upon the individuals engaged, the arrangements to be made and other factors, narcotics may be smuggled into the United States for subsequent transshipment to Canada, or into Canada for subsequent transshipment to the United States. In keeping with the purpose of the recently concluded convention which makes special reference to international trafficking, it was thought appropriate to penalize exportation from Canada in the same way as illicit importation. This provision is therefore wholly in keeping with the fulfilment of our international obligation.

There is one further provision relating to the criminal side of the measure to which


Narcotic Drugs Control I might make brief reference. This relates to cultivation of the opium poppy or of marijuana.

I briefly touched upon the opium poppy in my opening remarks. While the opium poppy is not legally cultivated in Canada, it is considered appropriate to prohibit its cultivation except under licence which, for practical purposes, is never issued. It would, however, permit of a licence being issued for experimental scientific purposes. Similarly in the case of marijuana.

The use of marijuana as a drug of addiction in Canada is fortunately not widespread. It, however, may well provide a stepping stone to addiction to heroin and here again cultivation of marijuana is prohibited except under licence.

The circumstances under which a licence might be issued could well involve experimentation to develop a form of plant for hemp purposes but without a narcotic content. Considerable work in this regard is, I understand, going forward in the United States and the time may well come when it will be possible to produce a source of hemp that is not associated with the dangers currently posed by the cultivation of marijuana.

Before coming to that part of the bill which deals with the legal distribution under the regulations, I should like to say a brief word on the seizure and forfeiture provisions. Here an important change is made from the present act.

The present act provides for the automatic forfeiture of any conveyance containing a narcotic or used in any manner in connection with the commission of an offence. This provision was designed to further impede the mobility of the trafficker by making vehicles subject to forfeiture.

Recognizing that under modern practices innocent persons may frequently have an interest in vehicles which would otherwise be prejudiced, the bill sets out a procedure whereby an innocent person may obtain protection to cover his interest in a vehicle used in trafficking and which is forfeited by the court.

It will be noted, however, that in the case of narcotics or moneys used for their purchase, these are subject to automatic forfeiture because they form part of the commission of the actual offence.

This brings me to the concluding part of the bill which is within my responsibility and which deals with the legal availability and use of narcotics. As I have mentioned, this will be done through the regulations which can be adapted to current needs and purposes.

While strict control over the legal distribution and use of narcotics is necessary, it


Narcotic Drugs Control would not be in the public interest if in an attempt to accomplish this there were imposed undue restrictions or limitations on the distribution and use of narcotics for medical purposes.

The manufacture, distribution and use of narcotics for these purposes requires supervision and control but with a workable flexibility in its administration. This flexibility could not effectively be obtained if all controls were entrenched in the legislation itself. Even under the present act, a great deal is delegated to regulations and experience has shown that this feature can usefully be extended to provide for all aspects of importation, distribution and use for legitimate purposes.

The availability of narcotics is, of course, primarily of interest to the healing professions and notably in the practice of medicine. It follows, therefore, that any proposals which impose controls should carry the support and understanding of the medical profession.

Regulations have been prepared and, in principle, these have been discussed with the representatives of organized medicine in Canada, as well as with the provincial licensing authorities who are concerned with the control of the practice of medicine. I can assure hon. members, therefore, that the regulations which have been drafted and which will in due course be submitted for enactment, carry with them the support and approval of organized medicine in this country.

Other provisions will be made regarding the licensing of importers, manufacturers and distributors and the control of narcotics by retail distributors and in hospitals, but these regulations do not of themselves incorporate any new or substantial change in the present control system.

May I, therefore, conclude my explanation by commending to hon. members this bill, which I believe marks a further and important advance by Canada in its control of the illicit use of narcotics, but which at the same time makes adequate provision for the legitimate employment by the healing professions of those substances for the relief of pain and suffering.


Edmund Davie Fulton (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):


is, I believe, the desire of the house that I should follow the submission made by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) in order that the complete outline of the government's thinking in connection with this legislation might be before the house for the purpose of the subsequent debate.

My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has outlined the scheme

of this legislation, and indicated the role of his department in devising a plan to give effective control of the distribution of narcotics through those channels and for those purposes which are regarded as legitimate. The legislation itself makes all other uses or possession of narcotics illegitimate. The responsibility of the Minister of Justice arises in connection with the enforcement of the control measures, the detection and apprehension of those who are breaking the law, and the custody and treatment of those who are convicted of such offences. I should like to outline to the house the new approach to these problems that underlies those portions of the bill with which I am concerned, which are found in part II.

It is always difficult, and usually dangerous, to summarize the basis or effect of legislation dealing with a problem as complex as this one, but if I were to attempt it, I should do it as follows. First, we have had to recognize that notwithstanding all the vigorous, faithful and efficient enforcement of the present act, the program embraced in that legislation has not been effective to solve the problems of narcotic addiction and narcotic trafficking. A new approach is therefore necessary.

Next, our studies have shown that the narcotic drugs in use for illegal purposes are not grown or manufactured in Canada but are imported and distributed initially through highly organized criminal circles. This leads to the conclusion that the objective of legislation should be threefold: first, to reduce so far as possible the supply of drugs brought in and distributed for illegal purposes; second, but simultaneously to reduce the demand for illegal drugs by providing effective treatment for existing addicts, and third, to prevent the creation of additional demand by preventing, so far as possible, the creation of new addicts

The drug traffic, after all, like any commercial activity obeys the laws of supply and demand. To remove the supply therefore will not remove the demand and to remove the demand will not necessarily reduce the opportunity of supply. It is necessary therefore for us to attempt to reduce both the supply and demand at the same time.

The third feature of the legislation is based on the recognition that the jurisdiction of parliament in this area is limited to the field of criminal law, that is, the creation of offences by the enactment of legislation and the provision of suitable punishment, to be imposed by the courts, for persons who commit those offences. The conclusion to be reached from this is that, in so far as this parliament is concerned, we can deal only with a part-although an important part, still only a part-of the problem of addiction.

This follows because there are in fact two types of addict, the criminal addict and the non-criminal addict. The first are those who are addicts and who are criminals as well, in most cases to support their addiction; the second are those who, although not convicted of any criminal offence, are known or suspected to be drug addicts. The first group -the addict who is convicted of a criminal offence-is within the jurisdiction of the federal law and therefore within the scope of any treatment or other program we may provide; but the other group who are perhaps sick rather than criminal, but most of whom must be treated for their addiction if they are to be saved from becoming criminal, are entirely within the jurisdiction of provincial laws.

The new approach therefore contemplates that there will be complementary provincial legislation to provide for the custody and treatment of the non-criminal addict. Without such co-operative and complementary action there will always be a significant and frustrating gap in our efforts to deal with the drug problem in Canada. We have already made an initial approach to the provinces in this connection, and this bill contains a provision reflecting our desire to co-operate by providing custody and treatment programs in our institutions for addicts who may be committed under either federal or provincial laws.

After this brief outline of the scheme of the legislation, let me turn to a more detailed examination of its various features. I have said that one of the objectives of the new legislation is to reduce the demand for illegal drugs by providing effective treatment for existing addicts. It will be appropriate, therefore, first to outline the scope of narcotic addiction in Canada and the new steps we propose for its effective control.

The world health organization defines a narcotic drug addict as a person who, through the use of narcotic drugs, develops an overpowering desire or need to continue to take the drug and to obtain it by any means, legal or illegal; he demonstrates a tendency to increase the quantity of the dose that he requires in order to satisfy his desire or need and he also has a psychological and sometimes a physical dependence on the effect of the drug.

The nature of the narcotic drug addiction problem in Canada is this: the legal use of narcotic drugs is limited by federal laws and regulations, as my colleague explained to certain approved medical and scientific purposes. Any other use is, by law, illegal. A person who has become addicted to narcotic drugs ordinarily is unable to support his habit by the legal purchase of drugs and therefore, 90205-6-378J

Narcotic Drugs Control in order to achieve his purpose, must resort to illegal purchases. The cost of drugs purchased illegally is high, and the addict ordinarily is incapable of earning by any legal means the money that he requires for illegal purchases. As a result the addict, who must generally purchase drugs one or more times daily, engages in criminal activity such as theft, shoplifting or peddling of drugs to other addicts and, in the case of females, in prostitution.

The best information available indicates that at the moment there are in Canada some 3,100 criminal addicts. It is, at the moment, a national problem that finds its greatest concentration in British Columbia and more particularly in the city of Vancouver. On a national basis one out of every 5,700 Canadians is a criminal addict. In Canada's cities, although the situation gives cause for concern in Montreal and Toronto, the problem is concentrated in the city of Vancouver. Montreal has one criminal addict for every 5,000 persons. Winnipeg, for example, has one for every 3,750 persons, and Toronto has one for every 2,000 persons. The greater Vancouver area has a criminal addict for every 390 residents. It is, therefore, in the city of Vancouver that there is the greatest immediate need for a solution, or at least an attempted solution, of the narcotic addiction problem.

However, I must emphasize that no solution or proposed solution can hope to be effective unless it operates on a national scale because if we brought in a solution that was operative only locally the result would inevitably be to drive the addicts and traffickers into those parts of Canada where the scheme was not operating or was not effective.

Another feature of the problem which gives an idea of the necessity for a new approach is the heartbreaking fact that under the present system the criminal addict is going through our penal institutions in a never ending cycle; crime, arrest and conviction; incarceration for a stated term; release, return to evil haunts and associations and again into the cycle of crime, arrest and conviction. It is a degrading cycle which leads steadily downward, and it is a social blot which should permit of no rest until it is eradicated. It spells perdition to its victims, and it is frustrating to the authorities to have to enforce the present program in the sure knowledge that of the number of known criminal addicts approximately one third are in our jails or penitentiaries at any one time, inevitably to return to the cycle on their release unless some effective change is made in our method of handling the whole problem.

The consideration of this situation has led us to the conclusion that what is needed is a concentrated effort to reform and rehabilitate

Narcotic Drugs Control rather than simply to incarcerate. We have decided accordingly to deal with the problem in so far as treatment of the criminal addict is concerned, by a three pronged attack: to cure his addiction in so far as medical and psychiatric knowledge make this possible; to treat his fundamental delinquency with a view to a reform of his criminal habits; and to provide the maximum degree of post release care and supervision with the object of assisting him to avoid a return to the cycle of addiction, crime and conviction.

Before outlining our program in detail, let me refer to one or two other approaches which have been suggested, but which we have rejected. One proposal that has been made with the objective of reducing or eliminating the illegal demand for drugs is this: To segregate every addict for life upon conviction for the offence of being in possession of illegal drugs. I think that this is unsound in principle because it is inconsistent with the basic philosophy of correction, which is, the reform of the offender. It is a completely negative approach which should certainly not be resorted to, at least until positive approaches have been tried and have been found to be inadequate. There would be substantial administrative difficulties as well as objections in principle. With no real hope of freedom the addict would make no effort to improve himself and, therefore, there would be little likelihood that the addict could ever establish that he had developed either the ability or the desire to abstain from the illegal use of drugs when at large. The result would be that by far the vast majority of addicts would live out their lives in captivity.

Again, such a procedure, that is the segregation for life of criminal addicts, would be extremely expensive as well as socially wasteful. The number of criminal addicts involved would, in a short time, be at least 3,000. The cost of maintaining each of them in a maximum security institution would certainly be not less than $6 a day, that is to say $18,000 a day for all of them or a total of $6,570,000 a year. This is, in addition to being socially wasteful and wrong in principle, clearly prohibitive because of cost, except as a last resort.

Another proposal that has been made is to provide drugs at cost to existing addicts according to their needs. This proposal has been uniformly and unequivocably rejected in a number of reports: The Canadian Senate report, a special report by a committee of the United States senate, a report by the United Nations narcotic commission and the report of the joint committee of the American bar association and the American medical association.

What then should be the federal program in relation to the criminal addict? The fundamental issue to be determined is whether, generally speaking, the criminal addict can, or cannot, abstain from the commission of criminal acts and, simultaneously, abstain from the use of narcotic drugs. The Canadian experience, thus far, on the basis of programs at present in existence, has tended to show that, generally speaking, he abstains from neither one nor the other. However, the clinical studies carried on by the Stevenson committee satisfied that committee that at least some addicts can discontinue the use of narcotic drugs and abstain from them under certain circumstances. They found that where there was any motivation for such discontinuance and abstention it was, generally speaking, an increasing dissatisfaction with the type of life the average addict was living and a desire for a more normal socially integrated life. Addicts who gave up the use of narcotics, they found, fell into two main groups; (a) those who became alcoholics, in which case they merely exchanged one chemical substance for another and may very well have been no better off than they were previously; and (b) those who gave up delinquency and addiction concurrently to become well conducted socially integrated citizens.

They found that the factors that tended to aid discontinuance in and abstention from the use of narcotic drugs and crimes were as follows: First, a strong desire for social reintegration and a fair degree of courage and persistence in pursuing this objective; second, avoidance of or minimal contacts with alcoholic or related substances; third, avoidance of contacts with delinquents, addicts and drug traffickers; fourth, acceptance and assistance by friends and relatives; fifth, congenial domestic relationships; sixth, satisfying work relationships; seventh, a constructive religious environment; and eighth, cultivation of socially approved recreation and hobbies.

Now, it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that these are the same factors that are ordinarily found to exist in the case of the reform and rehabilitation of the non-addict offender. The point would seem to be, therefore, that the criminal addict must be treated not only for his addiction but also for his fundamental delinquency. This makes the problem of reform of the narcotic addict not necessarily different from that of the reform of other criminals, but rather appreciably more difficult.

The basic approach of this bill to the problem of reducing and, if possible, eliminating the illegal demand for drugs by existing addicts is to provide for appropriate

institutional treatment to remedy the fundamental delinquency of the addict and to provide suitable supervision and guidance to assist the addict to abstain from using drugs during substantial periods of his life in the community.

We have decided, therefore, that instead of providing for simple imprisonment, our law should provide for committal to custody for treatment of persons who are addicts. The federal law should apply in relation to those persons who, being convicted of simple, illegal possession of narcotic drugs, are found to be drug addicts and are committed to custody for treatment accordingly in criminal proceedings. The provincial law should apply in relation to those persons who, not being under charge for any criminal offense under federal laws, are found, in proceedings under appropriate provincial legislation, to be drug addicts and are committed to custody for treatment accordingly under that legislation.

Committal to custody for treatment, whether made under federal or provincial law, should involve the following:

First, confinement in a secure place until such time as it is determined, by competent authority, that it is in the interest of the inmate and not contrary to the over-all interests of society for the inmate to be released; second, treatment, while in custody, by way of (a) the development of working skills or, in any event, good working habits, and (b) psychiatric, psychological and social counselling; third, development, while in custody, of an appropriate post-release program of employment, supervision and counselling; fourth, release at the appropriate time, under supervision for an indefinite period and, finally, return to custody for further treatment if, during the post-release period, it appears to be necessary for treatment purposes.

The effect of committal of an addict to "custody for treatment" by virtue of this legislation will be as follows: In the first place, the addict will be liable to detention and treatment for an indefinite period. Second, he will be eligible for release only at the instance and under the certificate of the national parole board and subject to conditions to be fixed by the board in each case. Third, the addict, after release, will be subject to supervision and guidance to be arranged by the national agency. Fourth, the period of supervision after release will be for first offenders a period up to 10 years, and for second offenders indefinite, and during that period the addict will be subject to frequent, periodic physical examination by means of the most up-to-date methods to determine whether he is again using narcotic

Narcotic Drugs Control drugs. Fifth, where, pursuant to such examination, he is found to be using narcotic drugs he will be dealt with by the parole board either by revocation of his certificate, in which case the addict will be returned to further custody and treatment for the remainder of the 10 years, or an indefinite period as the case may be, subject to be released by the agency by means of the same procedure that applied in the first instance, or, alternatively, by continuing the certificate under the same or altered conditions.

I am satisfied that the key to the success of this plan for treatment of the criminal addict will lie in the nature and extent of the after care that is provided for addicts who are released from custody by the national parole board. The program of after care should be consistent with and a natural extension of the program of treatment that the addict receives in the institution. If it is not, and if for that reason or for any other avoidable reason, the addict again resorts to drugs and to criminal activities, the money spent on specialized treatment for him in the institution will, for all practical purposes, have been wasted. It is important, therefore, that at least as much if not more emphasis should be placed upon the program of after care in relation to the addict as is placed on the program for treatment for him in the institution. Experience alone will determine how large a case load can be handled effectively by a parole supervisor.

The problem of finding suitable employment for released addicts will also have to be solved. Without employment the addict is not likely to abstain from the illegal use of drugs. If he commences again to use drugs illegally it is unlikely that he will abstain from the commission of criminal offences. In this connection, therefore, as in so many others where we are dealing with the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the intelligent and sympathetic support of society itself is required. I hope that the parole board officials, the private after care agencies and all others who may be concerned with making this program effective, will be able to count on the support and active assistance of every level of society in placing the paroled addict in gainful and useful employment.

I turn next, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the bill designed to accomplish the objective of limiting and indeed going as far as possible to dry up completely the supplies of narcotics available for illegal purposes. Here we are dealing generally with the problem of trafficking.

The traffic in narcotic drugs is essentially a world-wide problem. It would not exist if the growth, manufacture and distribution of

Narcotic Drugs Control narcotic drugs could be strictly limited to the amounts known to be needed for legitimate medicinal and research purposes. The United Nations are making efforts in this direction. However, in each year the amount required for legitimate medicinal and research purposes in all countries totals only about one quarter of the world production. It follows, therefore, that extremely large quantities of narcotic drugs are available in the world for illegal purposes and it is no surprise that a proportion of these quantities of drugs find their way to Canada to be distributed by illegal trafficking methods. What is required, therefore, to reduce the quantities of drugs available in Canada for illegal purposes is continuing strict enforcement of the various federal statutes that are involved, principally this legislation and the Customs Act. There must be continuing control by the Department of National Health and Welfare over the legitimate distribution of drugs in Canada. But there must also be constant vigilance and co-operation by federal, provincial and municipal police forces against the illegal possession and distribution of illegal narcotic drugs.

In connection with the problem of trafficking, we should not overlook the fact pointed out by my colleague that there would be no traffic within Canada were the supplies of narcotics not illegally smuggled into Canada. Therefore, we have created a new offense, with very heavy penalties even for the first offenders, of illegal importation. With respect to their custody and, where appropriate, their treatment, however, we have applied the same principles, and what I have to say about the trafficker applies generally to both the trafficker and the illegal importer.

In developing legislative policy in relation to the trafficker, the motivation of the trafficker should be immaterial. The law and the enforcement of it should be based on the view that the trafficker who peddles drugs primarily to pay the cost of his own addiction is no less a menace to society, while at large, than the trafficker who peddles for some other purpose. The law relating to the suppression of trafficking, then, should be sufficient in terms of punishment reasonably to deter the would-be trafficker from engaging in that form of activity and, if it does not do so, it should be adequate to protect society against him when he persists.

However, the law should also take into account that reform of the trafficker is possible, whether probable or not, and so he should have available to him the same opportunities of returning to society as a law-abiding citizen that are available to other classes of offenders who undergo imprisonment. The

[Mr. Fulton.l

trafficker, therefore, whether himself addicted or not, should be eligible for consideration for parole at appropriate times and under appropriate conditions to be determined by the parole board.

It would seem, then, that appropriate federal legislation against illegal drug trafficking should be designed: (a) to deter the

would-be trafficker; (b) to teach a salutary lesson to the peddler who may deal in many small transactions and also to the major distributor who may deal in only a few large ones; (c) to attempt to assist the convicted trafficker to live in society upon his release without engaging in this form of criminal activity; and (d) to remove from society, for substantial periods, those persons who have demonstrated by their previous conduct that they are not likely to refrain from this type of conduct in the future.

The present law, as contained in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, provides that every person who traffics in any drug or who has in his possession any drug for the purpose of trafficking is liable, upon conviction, to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and, in addition, at the discretion of the judge, to be whipped. No sentence of more than 14 years may be imposed upon a second or subsequent conviction. Probation may be granted to first offenders.

By contrast, this bill reflects the view that, in order to emphasize the serious nature of the offence, to provide the greatest possible degree of deterrence and to ensure that an appropriate remedy is available to the court where it is faced with the worst possible case of trafficking, the maximum punishment for that offence should be life imprisonment, and that it should be open to the court to impose it in a proper case, even where the accused is a first offender. There exists ample precedent for this in the Criminal Code at the present time. For example, the following offences, even in the case of a first offender, have a maximum punishment of life imprisonment: robbery, stopping the mail with intent to rob or search it; breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; mischief causing actual danger to life; rape; kidnapping; committing abortion; manslaughter; causing death by criminal negligence; attempted murder and accessory after the fact to murder. It would be difficult, indeed, to contend that the social harm caused by the deliberate drug trafficker is less than that caused by persons who commit any of the offences that I have enumerated.

Probation will continue to be available in proper cases for first offenders. The probation period could, of course, be made for any fixed

term of years or for life. If, during the term of the probation, the convicted trafficker violates any condition of probation, whether by engaging in trafficking or otherwise, the court would be authorized to impose any sentence that it might have imposed in the first instance, up to life imprisonment. During the term of probation, of course, the probationer is under the direct supervision and guidance of a probation officer.

What this bill proposes in the matter of sentences in relation to drug traffickers is not in my opinion in any way excessive having regard to the desired objective, namely, the removal of the danger to society that is presented by the person who is prepared to undertake the illegal distribution of narcotic drugs. The provisions of this bill will give almost complete discretion to the courts to adopt the course that is indicated as most appropriate in the individual case: to give to the first offender a chance to profit by his mistake and to continue to live in freedom; to remove from society for treatment and training, during an appropriate period, the trafficker who has not profited by his previous experience or, indeed, in an appropriate case to sentence him to life for a first offence; and to remove from society indefinitely those persons who refuse repeatedly to learn from experience.

I should say also that the approach in the bill provides with respect to the trafficker that if he is found to be an addict he may then and should, of course, be committed to custody for treatment, a sentence which would be imposed instead of a sentence for his offence of trafficking. The approach here is that all those who are addicts should primarily be treated for their addiction. Whether they be merely addicts without being traffickers or whether they be traffickers as well, if they are addicts then the first thing is to attempt to cure or to treat their addiction.

I will deal now with the third of the objectives I mentioned earlier, that of preventing the creation of new addicts. The prevention of the creation of new drug addicts would appear to be for the most part a provincial responsibility. The enactment by parliament of appropriate laws against the illegal supply of drugs and the strict and continuing enforcement of those laws will, by drying up that supply, assist in reducing the amount of drugs available for addicts or for traffickers to purvey to non-addicts with whom they associate. The way in which the federal government can best aid in preventing new addiction is by segregating in its penal system existing criminal addicts from non-addicts, thereby avoiding the type of association that in the past has tended to promote new addiction by young delinquents. This we propose

Narcotic Drugs Control to do in British Columbia by means of a new institution that will be started in that province this year.

With regard to the over-all problem, however, of what it is that creates drug addiction, the Stevenson report of 1956 found, from its examination of the delinquency records of addicted and non-addicted prisoners who were studied, the following:

1. In the addicted subjects the common finding of maladjustment in the home and school as children was carried over into neighbourhood maladjustments in juvenile delinquency.

2. Membership in juvenile delinquent gangs was common.

3. Contacts in childhood with the police because of unsatisfactory behaviour were frequent.

4. Between one third and one half of those who later became addicts spent some time as juveniles in correctional institutions.

5. The great majority of addicts had convictions in juvenile or adult courts before they began the use of narcotics.

6. Once addiction became established, the addicts, male and female, tended to engage in anti-social activities on a full time basis, in addition to violations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.

7. Addicts are a segment of the delinquent population.

8. Non-addicted delinquents have court records very similar to those of addicted delinquents, minus only violations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.

9. Addicts usually prefer not to be involved in crimes associated with violence, their common crimes being theft, shoplifting and related activities for the men, and prostitution for the women.

It would seem, therefore, that the best means of preventing the creation of new addicts is by preventing juvenile delinquency, a matter that,, in terms of the social, physical and moral development of young persons, seems to fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.

However, while this is so, in so far as concerns the control of juvenile delinquency and the prevention of those habits of criminality which lead so often to addiction, there is a portion of the federal program which will make a real contribution to the prevention of the creation of new addicts. This is our proposal to establish separate treatment centres to which all narcotic addicts, confined under federal legislation, will be committed. The first of these institutions will be, as indicated, in the lower mainland of British Columbia and upon its establishment there we will be able to segregate criminal addicts


Narcotic Drugs Control in British Columbia from the inmates of our institutions who are not addicts.

The problem of the presence in the same institution of addicts and non-addicts has been a constant difficulty in the way of preventing the spread of addiction. Strenuous measures are taken to prevent the introduction of narcotics into the institutions, but the nature and organization of illegal drug trafficking are such that it is not possible to guarantee absolute success. This results, unfortunately, not only in supplies coming in to addicts but in some cases in the creation of addiction. The establishment of new, separate institutions for addicts alone will give us a much better opportunity for control and even if we are not successful in preventing absolutely the introduction of narcotics into such institutions the segregation of addicts which will be accomplished will eliminate the spread of addiction through the mixing of addicts and non-addicts.

Furthermore, when, as I hope they will, the provinces agree to pass complementary legislation under which non-criminal addicts requiring treatment may be committed to our new treatment centres, this will represent a further step forward in the segregation of addicts and non-addicts. It will also represent a forward step in that we should by this co-operative measure be able to secure the commitment to custody for treatment in these specialized institutions of persons who, if they were not thus treated, would almost inevitably become criminals as well as addicts, thus representing an addition to the number of criminal addicts and a potent further danger from the point of view of the spread of addiction.

In conclusion then, the establishment of these new specialized institutions for the treatment of addicts will represent a federal contribution, and ultimately a federal-provincial co-operative program, for the prevention of the creation of new addicts.

I should like to refer to just one other matter although it has already been touched upon by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I refer to the care which has been taken in the bill now before the house to revise those portions of the old Opium and Narcotic Drug Act dealing with the confiscation and forfeiture of vehicles and other material used in connection with the commission of an offence under that act. Here again is another case where the government has been careful to revise such provisions and bring them into conformity with the bill of rights. The drafting of such legislation, motivated on the one hand by the proper desire to be severe with those who commit offences under this act or those who permit their property to be used and are

careless whether or not their property or property in which they have an interest, is used to facilitate the commission of an offence, presents a difficult problem from the point of view of being certain you do not go so far as to deprive an innocent party of his property without an opportunity to have a hearing before the courts.

After a very great deal of careful study, consideration and consultation we believe that the method outlined by my colleague represents a sufficiently stern and severe provision with respect to the man who carelessly or wilfully allows his property-I refer particularly to motor vehicles-to be used to facilitate the commission of an offence, while at the same time providing a method by which the innocent person is given an opportunity to establish his innocence of complicity in the offence. He is given an opportunity to establish the fact he has taken reasonable care to prevent his property from being used for that purpose and also to establish his interest in the property. The man is given the right to go before the courts and in appropriate cases where these things are established, the courts will order the restoration of the property of such innocent owners.

We take great pride and satisfaction, firstly in bringing these parts of the former legislation into line with the bill of rights, and also in the position generally taken that the spirit of the bill of rights must be observed and carried forward into all legislation introduced by this government. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the house will agree with my colleague and me that we have produced here legislation which is sound in its approach and effective in its method, as well as forward looking in its results, to bring at last an effective program for dealing with this problem of drug addiction.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks in respect of the bill which is before the house and the statements made by the two ministers during the past hour or so with regard to this legislation. I think it probably goes without saying but must of necessity be repeated, that all Canadians decry the fact there is anywhere in our society a problem with drug addiction. Most Canadians will be astonished to find such widespread effects as has been indicated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in the few statistics which he gave us. I think even those members who represent constituencies in British Columbia will be astonished to learn that one out of every 390 people in the greater Vancouver area suffer from this disability. Certainly, there is a necessity, according to

everything which modern science has learned, for having a Janus-like approach to this problem. The stern face should brook no opposition to the stamping out of this social evil, and this stern face should be shown to those who, for venal purposes for the purpose of making money only, prey upon the disability of other persons. No one in Canada would suggest that legislation could be too onerous, too difficult, for those who traffic for the purpose of money only.

Members of the opposition, of the government and of the public generally should, in approaching a problem which creates an emotional response as well as a rational response, be careful to see that legislation does not go too far. This legislation should provide that necessary framework for fitting into our whole concept of law, that is that a man shall not be found guilty unless so proven. It is necessary also that we scrutinize any such legislation extremely carefully to make sure that great power is not improperly used against someone alleged to have committed such a crime.

I believe it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians will wish that the second face which is turned toward those who suffer from addiction be firstly firm, and second, kindly. This is an illness just as much as alcohol addiction or other more physical ailments. It is an illness which requires assistance, perhaps even more than alcoholism because it has been shown that assistance is difficult to give since there seems to be so little co-operation from those who are caught in the net of addiction. I think many hon. members will have read a great deal in the public press in the last few years, particularly the United States and Canadian press, in the form of first person stories about addiction either by the individuals concerned, their children or their friends. One such person in particular is the well known United States writer, Alexander King, who deals with his frequent comings and goings from institutions, from which one can only deduce it is highly unlikely anyone really has a desire to escape addiction until the last few years of his life. I feel that the most usual reaction after all this reading is, what a terrible waste of humanity. There is not just the suffering of the addict, of course, but the shame which the family of the addict feels. There is the added fact that there is no income coming into the family, and the physical illness which results from continued addiction.

We, on this side, therefore, can do nothing but approve of the principle of Bill No. C-100. I, personally, would like to commend both ministers for the approach to the problem which their statements reveal. It is both a

Narcotic Drugs Control modern one and one which shows the sternness of the law will be applied to make sure that, in so far as this parliament is capable of doing so, addiction shall be stamped out. At the same time, a helping hand will be offered to those who will accept help. This, of course, does not mean that those of us in this group are abdicating our responsibilities as members of the opposition. We intend to scrutinize carefully the various clauses as they come before the committee of the whole.

I might refer specifically to some of the things which were said by each of the ministers in their statements. First, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith) said that there must be availability of drugs such as those listed in the schedule for legitimate purposes. Obviously, it is necessary because modern science could not get on without them. The problem is to get rid of addiction, and this is a problem not only for the 3,100 people who are already addicted and to whom the Minister of Justice referred but for the children and young women who may later become addicts. It was for this reason the Minister of Justice suggested there should be a three pronged approach: first, reducing the possibility of the importation of drugs into Canada; second, cutting down the demand for drugs by the addicts who are presently known and, third, doing what is possible to prevent new addicts.

The Minister of Justice pointed out quite properly that there are two types of addicts, the criminal and non-criminal. I can only assume that the criminal is the one with whom we are dealing and that, unhappily, there are not so many non-criminal addicts because even if they begin this way they shortly become criminals. If I may for once be excused for referring in this chamber to my sex, I should like to say that this is one of the problems which is of great concern to those interested in the enforcement of the law in so far as women are concerned. It is a fact, happy or otherwise, that the greatest proportion of women criminals in Canada are those who have, by reason of addiction, been drawn into prostitution. It is possible for a man to obtain some sort of casual employment in order to obtain money to feed his habit or to engage in something like robbing a house or a passerby. However, this is not the type of crime in which women can engage. A woman has only one way, a most degrading way, in which she can raise some money to feed this habit. Perhaps stamping out addiction amongst women, leaving everything else aside, will go a long way toward stamping out the growing evils associated with the prostitution of young women in the major cities of Canada.


Narcotic Drugs Control

The proposals in the bill for dealing with those known addicts, whether they be traffickers or simply those in possession of drugs, are I think good in principle. The concept which the Minister of Justice set out with regard to the way in which addiction must be treated is, however, something that perhaps can better be stated than realized. The five or six points he made included a desire for reintegration into society, personal courage, avoidance of alcoholics, avoidance of addicts and other criminals, acceptance by his friends, good relations at home with his wife and family and at work, acceptance back into his former religion and recreation and hobbies. Not all of these, of course, are things that can be legislated toward. A program of education will be required not only for the addict but for the public that may come in immediate contact with him and indeed for the public at large.

This is something that cannot be legislated under this bill or any other bin. It will have to be done through a special concerted attack not only by the federal and provincial governments but by welfare agencies and through assistance in provision of employment. A sympathetic and intelligent attitude on the part of the public to those who have received treatment and who have been considered sufficiently good risks to be released will be one of the largest areas to which assistance can be given by this government and by other levels of government. I think this is already one of the places where more work is necessary in Canada for every criminal who is released and more so for a criminal who has been an addict. Most employers appear to have a special approach to individuals who have been either alcoholics or narcotic addicts and they are more afraid of taking them on than of taking on those who may have been parolees on a charge of theft, robbery or something of that nature. Therefore such a piece of legislation as this one is only the first step toward a long and expensive but necessary program.

When anyone in Canada reads the figures quoted by the minister this afternoon, I think it will be agreed that this legislation is already overdue, that it cannot go far enough and that from this time forward it will be necessary to treat as a matter of national urgency a program which will return to their proper place in the community not only these 3,100 who already suffer from addiction but will prevent anyone else from swelling that number.

The problem of juvenile delinquency, of course, is one which has occupied the attention of the people of Canada for some time, perhaps since the war or a little bit earlier

than that. It has done so since these teenagers began to be treated as a group of society apart, since social workers began to discover that these were not just younger adults but were a class of the population with special problems. The Minister of Justice indicated that a number of elements are found both in ordinary juvenile delinquents and in juvenile delinquents who are delinquent as a result of their use of narcotics or who are addicts as the result of their juvenile delinquency. Certainly a program in which all levels of government cooperate in order to assist in the removal of this cancer of present day society is also long overdue and one which can only be greeted with applause.

The provision of the first institution where young persons and addicts are to be separated from other criminals is, I think, an important experiment and one that will be watched by all persons in Canada with hope that it will be a successful one and can be spread further.

In conclusion, I should like to say that we on this side approve in principle the statements of both ministers on the legislation before the house. We wish, of course, to deal with the individual clauses as they come before the committee of the whole. We will continue in the discharge of our responsibility to assure, in so far as we are capable of doing so, that the public as represented by a charged but not convicted criminal shall continue to be protected; but, once they are convicted either of trafficking or addiction, the principle of sending them up for preventive detention and for treatment is an excellent one and one in which we thoroughly concur.


Harold Edward Winch

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):

Mr. Speaker, I consider that the bill now up for consideration on motion for second reading in this House of Commons is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced this session. That feeling will, of course, be understood by hon. members recognizing that I am one of the House of Commons representatives from the city of Vancouver. The Minister of Justice has given us an indication of the seriousness of the narcotic problem in Canada, in particular in the lower mainland of British Columbia surrounding the city of Vancouver. He pointed out that, of the 3,100 known addicts in Canada, over half are in the city of Vancouver. I have known of this problem for a great many years. That is the reason why my late father and I, as members of the British Columbia legislature some 25 years ago, started a serious study of the problem and never lost any opportunity in the British Columbia house to speak on it

every session. As hon. members know, I believe I have spoken on it every year in which I have had the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons.

Before going into what I have to say on the specific bill itself I should like to comment on some of the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his opening remarks. I can agree with the minister that Canada can take pride in the fact that it has been a signatory to all the international treaties and conventions. It can also take pride in the fact that in Canada the legislation has been of a nature to try to control the illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. However, I cannot agree that we have been a spearhead or in advance in our legislation or in our approach in tackling the problem as far as addiction itself is concerned. Actually, I think Canada has been one of the most backward nations of the world in this respect. You will therefore, Mr. Speaker, understand why I greatly appreciate the fact that at long last a modern and realistic approach is being taken with regard to all aspects of the narcotic problem.

I wish to agree completely, however with the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the narcotic conference that was held at the United Nations this year. Whether we are dealing with members of the government party, the official opposition or this group, I am one who firmly believes that when commendation is due, commendation should be given. I think that the long narcotic conference held under the auspices of the world health organization at the United Nations this year was truly a magnificent effort. The fact that, after conferring annually for ten years, 99 member nations of the United Nations and nine countries invited as observers were able to come to a unanimous agreement on consolidating nine previous treaties and conventions into one, with just one exception,-and I think that is part I of the 1936 treaty-was a truly great achievement as also was the achievement of unanimous consent to consolidation into a single department of the other eight or nine various organizations in the international field that deal with narcotics. As I say, that was real progress and Canada can take a great deal of satisfaction from what occurred. I had the privilege of being at the United Nations during the latter days of the meeting of that conference. I have taken the opportunity of reading every word of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of the transcript of the evidence and I have no hesitation in saying that this house and the Canadian people owe a vote of thanks to Mr. Curran, our Canadian representative, for the work he did at that conference and particularly

Narcotic Drugs Control as chairman of the drafting committee. He must get a great deal of credit for the work he did on behalf of Canada.

As I said, I had the privilege of being there during the latter part of this conference and I thus had the opportunity to meet members of the delegations from other countries. I was impressed by the unanimity which they expressed in asking that Canada should take early action in ratifying the new treaty. Although there was unanimity about the acceptance of that treaty at the conference, that treaty, must, of course, be ratified by each of the countries and I found a measure of apprehension in the minds of representatives of some countries that there might be a long delay in obtaining official ratification. There was a unanimity of opinion, which gave me a certain feeling of pride, that if Canada would take a lead in ratifying the document it would have an important impact on many other countries.

I was therefore very pleased to hear the minister inform us, if I understood him correctly, that at an early date this house will be asked to ratify the new treaty.

May I also say with regard to that conference that on reading the transcript of evidence I was puzzled that Canada should be experiencing this most serious problem. Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Israel and many others, countries with populations larger than ours and with international seaports like our own, do not experience this problem. I do not know the reason for this, but it was interesting to note, with regard to the section which dealt with rehabilitation and the treatment of addicts, that 65 countries said they had no need of provisions for treatment and rehabilitation centres because the problem, with them, was not sufficiently serious. As I say, I found this puzzling.

There is another matter which puzzles me. In the United Nations, there are 99 nations represented all of whom were invited to this conference. The world health organization also invited representatives of nine other countries who are not members of the United Nations, and those countries attended. Thus the representatives of 108 countries were present. I am not certain whether I heard the hon. gentleman correctly, but I think the minister said the major source of these drugs was India and Turkey. In the evidence I read it was emphasized time and time again that communist China was the major source, both of the drugs and of the illicit trafficking. So I was surprised to find, since the world organization had invited nine delegations representing countries not members of the United Nations that this


Narcotic Drugs Control country which is said to be the main source of the trouble was not represented at the conference. I was not able to get an answer as to why the country which presented the major problem as being the source of these narcotics was not represented at the narcotics conference. That is all I want to say on the subject of the conference but I wish to repeat that it was a magnificent one and that Canada can be proud of the contribution made by Mr. Curran as well as of the results and the achievements generally.

Now I turn again to the bill itself. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, according to the latest figures there are 3,100 known addicts in Canada of whom more than half are in Vancouver. I have been intrigued as to why this should be the situation. I can only conclude that it must be because Vancouver is an international port and because it is in closest proximity to what the narcotics conference said is the main source of production and of illicit trading in narcotics, namely, communist China. Irrespective of the reasons why such a situation should exist, it presents a severe and serious problem. Together with all other members of this group, I am grateful that in the bill now before us it is recognized for the first time that provision should be made for the treatment of addicts as sick people and not as criminals. I am certain that the establishment of the rehabilitation centres will go a long way toward alleviating the situation.

I was most interested in the statement made by the minister when he suggested that the question be approached in terms of supply and demand. I completely agree with what he said in this regard. I feel that sufficient attention is not being paid to that and one other aspect of the problem, namely the profit angle. After all my studies of this question and the keen interest I have shown in it I feel we should make real progress if something were done to remove the profit motive. Undoubtedly the illicit trade continues mainly because of the exorbitant profits to be made from the illegal sale of drugs. I suggest one of the main reasons why there are so many addicts is because those illicit traffickers in this field vigorously seek to introduce unaddicted people to the horrible habit of use of these narcotics.

Studies have been made by the Canadian Senate committee, and the report of that committee has indicated its rejection, for some reason, of what is known as the English principle. I must say that the English principle has been very successful. As has been pointed out year after year by the United Nations, in the United Kingdom, which has a population of some 47 million, the known number of

addicts for quite a considerable period of time has been less than 400. I suggest one of the reasons for this situation in the United Kingdom is that it is not considered a crime there to be addicted to the use of drugs. However, under their system known addicts must be treated. An individual there having received treatment without being completely cured, and upon a report of the medical doctors to that effect, is provided a minimal daily shot on prescription which he purchases at cost.

I suggest that this phase of the problem in respect of addicts should be considered thoroughly by the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That system has proven successful in the United Kingdom as well as in Scandinavian countries and in Israel. I suggest it has decreased the number of addicts because it has removed the lucrative aspect of narcotic trafficking. When the profit is removed the illicit trade ceases.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to relate my remarks to the situation in Canada. I am very sorry to note that this particular phase of the situation has not been covered by this proposed measure, as I feel it should have been covered. Because of my interest in this problem over a period of 25 years I know of many different addicts. I can at this time recall one young man who was a good member of society until he began to use narcotics and eventually became completely addicted to their use. That young man eventually reached the point where he needed so many shots he had to turn to a path of crime in order to obtain them. That young man got married and unfortunately successfully addicted his wife to the use of drugs as well. At this time she is incurably insane-nothing can be done for her. After a long period of time and a great deal of effort, during which period the young man was in and out of prison as a result of his criminal activities, we were successful in getting him to submit to medical treatment. Following a period of treatment the doctors arrived at the decision that they could not do anything more for him and that he required a minimal daily shot of narcotics. During a period of some years now that man has been receiving his minimal shot per day from the doctors and has never broken the laws of Canada again by a return to crime.

I suggest that is a good illustration of what can be accomplished in regard to this problem.

I think it should be spelled out in this proposed legislation that, in respect to that type of case, following a medical man's certification of an addict as being cured as far as possible, but still needing a minimal shot, that addict can obtain that amount on subscription at cost. I am sure the Minister of Justice has knowledge of the fact that in regard to addicts

of this type doctors will not recommend or provide this treatment because of the necessity of having the Royal Canadian Mounted Police keep close check on the quantities of narcotics ordered by different doctors. I have spoken with many doctors who invariably have indicated to me that they will not bother with this type of treatment in view of the necessity of such an investigation being made as to the amount of narcotics ordered by him. While I understand it is permissible, under the Canada Medical Act, for doctors to provide this type of treatment, I think advantageous influence might flow from the spelling out of the legality of this type of treatment under this act. I make that suggestion for the consideration of the two ministers who are sponsoring this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to refer to what in my opinion is something of an important nature not covered by this bill. I completely agree with the principle that there is a requirement for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in order to arrest known addicts so as to provide them with treatment. I am, however, concerned, in this regard because, as I read the provisions contained in this bill, there is still a criminal aspect involved. The Minister of Justice having lived in British Columbia, will know that years ago there was an extremely difficult situation there in respect of the number of persons afflicted with infectious tuberculosis. The hospitals of British Columbia were not only filled some years ago but the province had to build more. The number of people with infectious tuberculosis was increasing because of the fact that irresponsible individuals would not voluntarily submit to treatment. I take a lot of pride in the fact that, while in opposition, I suggested year after year there should be a change made whereby those known infected individuals could be compelled to take treatment. That change was made and has proven to be very satisfactory. Today in British Columbia the province not only has ceased building tuberculosis hospitals but has closed the existing hospitals with the exception of one, which I understand is only about one third filled. I suggest an identical principle could be adopted in regard to the treatment of known narcotic addicts, with a great deal of effect. However, as I read the provisions of this bill, one vital factor has been ignored or forgotten, and I refer to voluntary committals. I am convinced from my knowledge of this problem, and the individuals who are addicts, many of them actually desire to have the monkey off their backs, which is the term that is used, and would voluntarily submit to treatment. As I have said, there is no provision contained in this proposed legislation in respect to voluntary committals. The only

Narcotic Drugs Control course open to an individual is voluntarily to say that he is an addict. He would then come under this clause which I still say in its actual terminology has a criminal approach.

May I give one example why I think this is of the utmost importance. A few months ago in the city of Victoria a father found out that his 17-year-old daughter was a drug addict. He did what I think was the right thing. He picked up the telephone and called the police. He hold them that he had just discovered that his 17-year-old daughter was a drug addict and he said, "What would you advise me to do?" Do you know what happened, sir? He was not given any advice as to the best procedure to follow for the girl's sake and to cure her of the addiction. Because the father had telephoned the police raided the home. The girl was arrested and sentenced to prison. I think that was a damnable procedure to follow, a vicious mistake. What they should have done was to direct that the girl be sent to a doctor or be referred to the narcotic foundation of British Columbia, which is doing a magnificent job. Instead of that she was picked up. She was sentenced to jail and she is now considered a criminal.

I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice to consider whether between now and the discussion of the bill in committee it would be possible to include some wording under which there would be an indication to the provinces that under provincial legislation a voluntary commitment could take place without the stigma or the taint of crime being attached to it. I sincerely hope that this will be considered by the government.

This legislation is of such importance that one could speak a long time on it. However, I am not going to go into a number of other aspects which I feel are important because I believe it can be done when the house is in committee. Without going into any detail at all, I should like to mention in passing some points which have to do with the details of the bill which should be considered further by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice. I hope we shall have a discussion on them in committee. I mention them very briefly so that they can be noted by the minister.

May I say I am sorry I was not here yesterday when the goof ball bill was discussed; I had to be away. This bill contains a principle similar to that contained in the other bill. Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting one of the great constitutional lawyers of Canada and also certain professors. That meeting took place in connection with other matters. They expressed anxiety about one principle in this bill which is contained in a clause which can mean only that an

Narcotic Drugs Control indicted person must prove his innocence. It has always been my belief that the responsibility for proving guilt was 100 per cent on the crown. The thought of having to prove one's innocence is something which is antagonistic to what we commonly, favourably and lovingly call British justice. I do think that this matter should be reconsidered.

There is also the clause that deals with trafficking. I am discussing it only in principle. A person can have no sympathy for one who breaks the law, no sympathy at all for one who commits homicide and, of course, no sympathy for one who traffics in narcotics. I think about the lowest depths that any man or woman can sink to is to be a trafficker in narcotics. A murderer kills and that is it. But one who traffics in drugs, who brings a person to addiction, to that insatiable craziness, makes an absolute hourly and daily hell for life for the addict. I, therefore, have no sympathy for him, and I agree that for the trafficker there should be a penalty of up to life. But there is one phase of the question of trafficking that I do not quite understand. On the first conviction for trafficking the penalty can be up to life, but there is no minimum punishment for the first offence. This may not sound the way I talk at times, but when it comes to this curse of trafficking in narcotics I can realize what it means to those who become addicted. Although I agree completely with the sentence of up to life and an indeterminate sentence, I say there should be a minimum period for the first offence of trafficking. It is a pretty important matter and one which should be made clear by law, so that those who are guilty of the first offence of trafficking will know that there is a minimum and they will be out after at least that length of time.

As I mentioned a while ago, there is nothing in the bill having to do with the legal minimal supply of drugs. I hope this will be considered by the Minister of Justice.

There is also a clause which deals with restoration of articles seized. Under certain terms and conditions a person can make application for the restoration of what has been seized if he had the narcotics legally. There is nothing in the bill which says that if the person is innocent and restoration is made there shall be payment for the damage caused. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have been in homes that have been raided because of the suspicion of narcotics being present. I have seen smashed walls, smashed plumbing, smashed electrical fixtures, and so on, running into damage amounting to hundreds of dollars. The suspicion was not well founded, but there is nothing in the law which says

that the innocent home owner shall get anything back for the damage done by the crown, although the occupant has not broken any law of Canada. I think, sir, in all sense of justice and decency something should be done either by regulation or by the legislation itself to deal with this phase of the matter also.

I notice, sir, that my time has almost expired, but I should like to mention two more points. We are most happy that provision is going to be made for post discharge care and supervision. Supervision on discharge after having received treatment is of the utmost importance. That is the time when these people are coming back into society and they need a great deal of help. I hope the wording of the bill means that great emphasis is going to be placed on this matter.

May I also refer, and I address myself now particularly to the Minister of Justice, to the need for very careful instructions, which should be most carefully obeyed, to the police forces of our country. I have known many addicts, both men and women, in the course of my research into this matter. I am afraid that many have returned to addiction or have become anti-social through being hounded because they were known addicts and had been to jail or penitentiary.

I mentioned a while ago the case of a young man who for years now has not come into conflict with the law. Yet I was informed only recently that periodically he is picked up by the police because of his past record. Nothing is ever found. The police know that he is getting the minimum dose and yet he is picked up periodically. Psychologically speaking, this is dynamite so far as that individual is concerned whom we tried for years to rehabilitate and finally did.

I know of another case in the city of Vancouver involving a man who has been sent to jail three times as a drug addict. I know for an absolute fact from my own personal knowledge that this man has been hounded. He gets a job and two days later someone says to his employer, "Do you know whom you have got on the job", and the man is fired. In addition, his brother, who has never been in trouble with the police, is also hounded, simply because he is the brother of a narcotic addict who has been in jail three times. This is not fiction. I speak from my own intimate personal knowledge.

So far as post discharge rehabilitation and supervision are concerned, I plead with the Minister of Justice to recognize the psychological effect of trying to help these people rather than hound them. I feel certain that point is in the mind of the minister but I believe he should know there are many who

do not follow his precepts and principles. I am quite certain that some people have become addicts again because of a psychological break down brought about by the situation I have just outlined.

I think I have said enough on second reading. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the bill is a great advance over anything we have had before. It represents a constructive approach to a most serious problem. The government is to be commended for tackling the problem at long last and bringing in this bill. In principle it has our wholehearted support. However, as the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) said, there are some details of the bill which we would like to have an opportunity of discussing with both ministers from the point of view of possibly making some changes and strengthening the legislation so that it can be a real forward step toward the solution of a most difficult problem.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin


Mr. Cardin:

Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? In his very interesting remarks on this most grave problem, he stated that the problem of addiction was particularly felt in the city of Vancouver, no doubt because of the relative position of Vancouver and China. From his studies and research with respect to the problem, can the hon. member state whether it exists in the same degree of acuteness in all the coastal cities on the west coast of the United States? In San Francisco, for instance, is the degree of addiction comparable with that in Vancouver?


June 7, 1961