Own your ow legal marijuana business | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy | ||||
Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs | ||||
Volume 2 - Policies and Practices In Canada |
|
Chapter 11 - A National Drug Strategy?Phase
II - Renewal
In order to determine the future of
the NDS, the federal government undertook a national consultation process in
March and April 1991. The purpose of the consultations, held with local and
provincial partners, was to prepare for the possible renewal of the NDS, obtain
information on the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy and identify
renewal priorities. During the consultations, alcohol abuse was identified as
the major problem in Canada, and the abuse and misuse of pharmaceuticals was
the second most frequently mentioned concern. Tobacco use was also seen as a
major substance abuse and health problem. Street drugs, while still a concern,
were not a major worry of those consulted. It was noted that cannabis use
continued to be widespread. Many at the consultations advocated
incorporating the Driving While Impaired (DWI) Strategy into the NDS, and there
was also strong support for a comprehensive national alcohol policy. It was
also suggested that use of steroids by athletes and youth be included in the
NDS. Finally, others called for a comprehensive tobacco policy and for
tobacco’s inclusion within the NDS. A long-term commitment to the drug strategy
was one of the issues stressed by the participants. To
address many problems in substance abuse, participants in the consultation
process stressed the need for a long-term commitment to CDS. Substance abuse
has been a problem since the dawn of time. To expect significant changes in the
level and nature of substance abuse over a five, or even a ten, year period is
not realistic. The impact of initiatives to counteract the problem of substance
abuse may not be visible for generations. Therefore, CDS must become an ongoing
program with political and government support and endorsement. Bringing about
fundamental long-term societal changes in attitude and behaviour requires base
funding, without a sunset provision. [1][25] In 1992, the NDS was renewed under
the designation Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS). Funding was increased to $270
million over the five-year period and the Strategy principally involved six
federal departments.[2][26] As had been suggested, the DWI Strategy became a component of CDS,
although the same could not be said for tobacco. Once again, CDS called for a
balanced approach to reducing both the demand for drugs and their supply. The
funding was to be allocated as follows: prevention (30%); treatment (30%);
enforcement and control (28%); information and research (5%); national focus
(5%); and international co-operation (1%). According to Health Canada, over the
five-year period, about $104.4 million was actually provided.[3][27] In fact, resources that were originally
approved were almost immediately reduced, and this reduction continued over the
course of CDS as a result of budget cuts. In renewing CDS, the federal
government acknowledged the concerns of stakeholders and stated that solutions
to substance abuse require long-term commitment–that to expect significant
changes over five or even ten years was not realistic. Thus, it was stated that
CDS should become an ongoing program. In addition, it was thought that a
balanced approach between demand and supply reduction was critical to the
success of CDS. Finally, it was recognized that partnerships (both governmental
and non-governmental) at all levels (locally, nationally and internationally)
were needed.[4][28] On the whole, it was concluded that
the strategy was working well and that it was important to maintain the
momentum created by Phase I. The primary and overall objective of Phase II was
to make Canada’s alcohol and other drug interventions more effective at
reducing harm to individuals, families, and communities caused by the problem
use of alcohol and other drugs. This would be accomplished through the
following secondary objectives: v Improved program targeting through a focus on
high-risk populations (especially young children, street kids, dropouts,
off-reserve Aboriginals, the unemployed, seniors and women); v Improved coordination and collaboration across
federal departments and with external partners (provincial and territorial
governments, non-governmental organizations, etc.); v An improved information base on substance
abuse-related issues, to assist policy-makers, program developers, researchers,
professionals, and others concerned with substance abuse issues in addressing
this problem; and v Enhanced resources that would enable
departments to continue certain ongoing activities and redirect attention to
emerging issues or new activities.[5][29] The decision to renew CDS was
accompanied by a requirement for its evaluation. In June 1997 a report
evaluating Phase II of CDS was published by Health Canada. Its main findings
were as follows: v Improved program targeting was implemented in
all participating departments, with justifiable variation according to their
respective mandates; v Interdepartmental coordination at the working
level and for task-specific initiatives was effective. However,
interdepartmental co-ordination at the strategic planning level was identified
as a concern over the course of Phase II and would not appear to have been
resolved (clear coordination goals were not identified, nor was the role of the
CDS Secretariat properly defined); v CDS did not have national visibility at either
political or public levels; v The information available in Canada on the
issue of substance abuse increased as a result of Phase II funding; v Departmental resources were increased through
Phase II. However, there were significant subsequent cuts to some departmental
budgets that may have limited the potential achievements of Phase II; and v Phase II resources were used in a manner
consistent with a harm reduction approach, although a formal harm reduction
policy was not in place during the course of the strategy. The report also identified effective
leadership, coordination and strategic planning as essential to the strategy,
and found weaknesses in these areas during Phase II. In addition, a common
vision and a set of clear and measurable objectives were also found to be
fundamental requisites. Lack of accountability for strategy-wide objectives was
also identified as a problem. As will be discussed later, most of these issues
were again raised as concerns in 2001 (five years later) by the Auditor General
of Canada To
coordinate the strategy, two groups were established at the federal level, both
chaired by Health Canada: the Assistant Deputy Ministers’ Steering Committee on
Substance Abuse, and the Interdepartmental Working Group on Substance Abuse.
Their purpose has been described as follows: The
Steering Committee is mandated to meet at least twice a year to improve the
overall effectiveness of the strategy and provide direction to the Working
Group. Its aims are to co-ordinate federal activities, develop consensus on
priorities, address emerging issues, and monitor implementation of the federal
strategy. [6][30] [1][25]
Government of Canada, Canada’s
Drug Strategy: Consultations 1991, page 7. For more information on comments
made regarding supply issues, demand issues and the role and impact of CDS, see
pages 3-7. [2][26] Health and Welfare
Canada, Solicitor General Canada, Revenue Canada (Customs and Excise), Labour
Canada, External Affairs and International Trade Canada and Justice Canada. [3][27] Gillian Lynch, Director
General, Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, Health Canada,
Proceedings of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, first
session of the thirty-seventh Parliament 2001-2002, 10 June 2002, Issue no. 22,
page 27. [4][28]
Government of Canada, Canada’s
Drug Strategy – Phase II, 1992, page 3. [5][29]
Health Canada, Evaluation of
Canada’s Drug Strategy: Final Report, June 1997, p. iv. [6][30]
Report of the Auditor General of
Canada to the House of Commons, 2001, Chapter 11, “Illicit Drugs: The
Federal Government’s Role”, page 6. |