In comparing the relative influence of enforcement and non-enforcement interests in Canadian drug politics, it is important to recognize that the “bureaucratic enforcement complex” enjoys a functional advantage in this issue area due to the fact that its policy preferences are thoroughly institutionalized in current drug laws. Generally speaking, it takes much less effort to maintain an existing policy than it does to formulate and implement significant policy reform, so even though the enforcement lobby has lost some influence relative to reformers, the presence that they do maintain appears to be enough to ensure that significant change does not occur.⁸ In light of these observations, it appears as though bureaucratic imperatives do indeed play a significant role in the continued dominance of supply side drug control policies in Canada.

“Tough on Crime” Political Posturing. In recent years, tough on crime policies have been enacted throughout Canada, and all major political parties now have law and order/community safety planks in their official platforms. It is generally accepted that tough on crime policies are an import from the US where they have been a staple of national politics since the mid-1960’s. The long-term effects of highly punitive criminal justice policies are now becoming evident in the US as that country now has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, and many jurisdictions are bordering on crisis with regards to prison overcrowding and costs (Mauer 2001). Tough on crime political posturing often translates into tough on drugs initiatives because there is a high correlation between illicit drug use and crime in Canada (Pernanen et al. 2002).

Ontario is of course the place where tough on crime policies have gained the strongest foothold in Canada. The Tories under Harris (and now Eves) made getting tough on crime a major part of their political agenda, and have implemented a bewildering array of “law and order” type initiatives since coming to power. One can gain an appreciation for the emphasis on tough on crime politics in Ontario by visiting the websites of the Province’s criminal justice related agencies, such as the Ministry of the Solicitor General. These sites are literally bristling with statements relating to law and order initiatives implemented by the Tories.⁹

One excellent way to gauge the significance of tough on crime political posturing in Canadian politics is to analyze the content of private members bills that have been introduced since the last election. Although private member bills rarely make it past the first reading, and are therefore mostly “symbolic politics,” they do provide a general assessment of the overall tenor of politics in Canada. Since the last election, there have been approximately 280 private member bills introduced in the House of Commons on everything from banning the export of water to the US, to establishing a Holocaust Memorial Day. An analysis of the titles of current private member bills reveals that a whopping one fifth (52 of 280 or 19%) of them involve tough on crime legislative initiatives!¹⁰ These data suggest that tough on crime political posturing is indeed a significant part of contemporary Canadian political culture.

⁸ In looking closely at the dynamics played out in the formulation of the pro-enforcement Controlled Drug and Substances Act (1997), it is interesting to note that non-enforcement interests were well represented in the earlier phases of discussions, but once the process progressed to hammering out the details of the new law, only pro-status quo representatives from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice participated.
⁹A clear example of Ontario’s commitment to tough on crime policies can be found at: http://www.mpss.jus.gov.on.ca/english/english_default.html
¹⁰All though the vast majority of private member bills are unsuccessful, some do make it through the Parliamentary process to become law. In the Spring of 2002, a private member’s bill (C-344) sponsored by Keith Martin, an Alliance MP from BC who also happens to be a medical doctor, almost succeeded in decriminalizing cannabis. When it became apparent that C-344 probably had sufficient support to pass, the Liberal Government attached a “poison pill” amendment which killed it after the second reading. This event is significant because it is the first time in history that a ruling Government has acted so heavy-handedly so late in the policymaking process to kill a bill from a private member. Dr. Martin called the action of the Liberals “a travesty of democracy” and has set out to attempt to reform Parliamentary procedures to protect private member bills from such attacks in the future. See the concluding section of this article for further discussion of the significance of C-344.