In 1987, the Mulroney government rediscovered the “drug epidemic” in Canada (even though use was actually declining according to all objective measures), and pledged support for a new approach, one that would seek a balance between traditional efforts to control the supply of drugs (monitoring, enforcement, interdiction) and efforts to control the demand for drugs (education, research, treatment). The new Canadian Drug Strategy allocated $210M over five years mostly to promote demand control initiatives. Unfortunately, due to implementation failures, the Strategy once again ended up favouring enforcement interests (Fischer 1994)³ . The Drug Strategy was renewed in 1992 and again in 1997, but in each of its successive incarnations the desired balance between supply and demand control efforts failed to materialize.

The new drug strategy also included efforts to “update” Canadian drug laws. These efforts eventually took the form of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) in 1997. Development of the CDSA spanned five years, three bills, and two ruling governments (Conservatives 1992-1993; and Liberals 1993-1997). In its final form, however, the CDSA failed to move Canadian drug law in a more balanced direction; its primary function was to integrate and update the prohibitionist drug control provisions of the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drug Act. In order to address the voices criticizing the prohibitionist character of the CDSA, Parliament agreed to conduct a top-level review of Canadian drug policy after passage of the law.⁴ This review continues today through the work of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (authorized on May 11, 2000) and the House Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (authorized on May 17, 2001). The Senate Committee is scheduled to table its final report on August 31, 2002, and the House Committee will report in November 2002.

To summarize, although the topic of drug policy reform has moved on and off the official agenda since at least the late 1950’s, current drug policy in Canada still embodies the basic prohibitionist principles institutionalized by the enforcement bureaucracy during the first half of the 20th century (Fischer et al. 1996). Indeed, the Auditor General of Canada recently reported that in 2000, 94% of federal drug control expenditures went to enforcement/supply reduction (Auditor General 2001). The next section discusses several potential explanations for the continued emphasis on supply-side drug control policies in Canada.

POTENTIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE CONTINUED SUPPLY-SIDE EMPHASIS

There are a number of potential explanations for why Canada is finding it so difficult to move toward a more balanced approach to illicit drug control. Six of these are introduced below:

Bureaucratic Imperatives. This perspective suggests that the continued emphasis on supply reduction in Canada can be explained by the political pressure exerted from large bureaucratic interests who benefit from the current enforcement-dominated approach to drug control (Oscapella 1998).

“Tough on Crime” Political Posturing. This perspective suggests that the emphasis on supply reduction can be explained by the repeated playing of the “tough on crime” card by politicians participating in Canadian electoral politics. Tough on crime initiatives often translate into tough on drugs policies since there is a high correlation between alcohol/illicit drug use and crime in Canada (Pernanen et al. 2002).

³ These failures relate to two outcomes: (1) much of the money slated for drug education was allocated to enforcement interests via programs like DARE that pay for police officers to go into Canadian schools and educate students on the dangers of drug use, and (2) provinces were required to “match” the federal funds allocated for treatment and research which did not occur, so a large part of these resources were never dispersed.
⁴ The reformers were quick to point out that the irony of reviewing Canada’s drug policy after passage of the law since it was the law itself that many felt needed to be reformed.