SNUD Committee Report

CHAPTER 3: CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY

… Canada’s drug strategy sunsetted in 1997. In my opinion, there has been a leadership vacuum on non-medical drug use since that time. While the federal government has not entirely disengaged itself from the issue, it removed an overarching and comprehensive national framework that had brought together partners from different jurisdictions to address pressing social, health, and economic impacts of substance abuse. On the federal scene today there is no visible government champion for non-medical drug use. This is a shame, because leadership in addiction research and policy requires a coordinated strategy involving multiple sectors, including the health, enforcement, judicial, and research sectors.⁵³

It is most important to recognize that you don’t need to be compassionate to put dollars into substance abuse and addictions. You just have to think about the prosperity of your country. The social costs of untreated addictions are much greater than the social costs of most other health issues that mostly affect the individual. Addiction, because of the nature of what it is, not only affects the individual, but affects our neighbourhoods, our schools and every fabric of our society. It is just too costly in the bottom line to let this health issue get out of hand.⁵⁴

This chapter will provide an historical overview of Canada’s Drug Strategy dating back to its origin in 1987. The information on the first two phases of the Drug Strategy covering the period 1987-1997 has been gathered from documentation. The Committee has concentrated its efforts on the study and evaluation of the current phase of Canada’s Drug Strategy, phase three covering the period 1997-2002.

1. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY

a) Phase I: 1987-1992

On May 25, 1987, Canada launched a five-year drug strategy⁵⁵ to address substance abuse-related concerns raised in 1986 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who had declared that drug abuse had become an epidemic that undermined the economic and social fabric in Canada.⁵⁶ The Government of Canada allocated additional funds amounting to $210 million to support the new strategy, of which approximately 77% was to be directed to demand reduction measures such as education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The emphasis on demand reduction was meant to achieve a more balanced approach as, at the time, much work was being done at the provincial, territorial and community levels to address demand reduction. The federal efforts were almost totally dedicated to supply reduction through enforcement, interdiction and control activities.⁵⁷

The National Drug Strategy (NDS) called for simultaneous and concerted action on six fronts: education and prevention, enforcement and control, treatment and rehabilitation, information and research, national focus, and international co-operation.⁵⁸ Acknowledging that substance abuse was primarily a health issue, the government designated the Health Minister as the lead minister for the NDS.

The first phase of the National Drug Strategy saw the implementation of a unique monitoring agency, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Outside of Health Canada, the CCSA is the lead national agency on substance abuse in Canada. Following a proposal by the Task Force on the National Focus⁵⁹, and as part of the government’s response to a report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, “Booze, Pills and Dope: Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada” (1987), an Act of Parliament created the Centre in 1988. The CCSA was to play a strong complementary role to that of the federal government as an independent national non-governmental organization mandated to provide a national focus for efforts to reduce health, social, and economic harm associated with substance abuse and addictions. The CCSA was placed within the portfolio of the Minister of Health, where it remains today. Specifically, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act⁶⁰ sets out five areas of responsibility for the CCSA:

b) Phase II: 1992-1997

In March 1992, Cabinet renewed its commitment and launched a second phase of the strategy, entitled Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which regrouped the National Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving and the National Drug Strategy under one initiative. Phase II was to focus on:

In terms of enforcement, more attention was to be paid to implementing the Proceeds of Crime legislation. This minor shift in focus in Phase II of the strategy meant that 60%, rather than 70%, of resources would be allocated to demand reduction and 40% to supply reduction. Total funding for this second phase was set at $270 million over five years and it was accompanied by a requirement for the evaluation of the strategy. However, Health Canada estimated that only approximately $104.4 million was spent over five years on Phase II of Canada’s Drug Strategy as a result of financial cuts in the overall funding of federal departments.⁶³ Phase II was to be coordinated by a newly created secretariat (1991), Canada’s Drug Strategy Secretariat, to be housed in Health Canada.

c) Phase III: 1997-2002

In 1998, the Government of Canada reaffirmed the principles of a national drug strategy, however the funding was significantly reduced again. A 1998 document, entitled Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), articulates the basic principles, goals, objectives and components of the strategy, as well as the directions and priorities of the federal government to address issues related to the use and abuse of substances such as alcohol, licit and illicit drugs. A committee comprised of representatives from 11 federal departments and a number of non-federal partners developed Canada’s Drug Strategy.

The overarching principle of Canada’s Drug Strategy is that substance abuse is primarily a health issue. This important principle raises awareness to the fact that the determinants of health and underlying factors such as housing, employment, social isolation and education, must be considered when addressing substance abuse problems. According to the director general of the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme who appeared before the Committee, Canada’s Drug Strategy’s approach to substance abuse involves action based on four pillars: control and enforcement, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and harm reduction.⁶⁴ The long-term goal of Canada’s Drug Strategy is “to reduce the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families, and communities.”⁶⁵ Reducing the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs is to be accomplished through five goals and corresponding objectives:

Increase the understanding of risks associated with illicit drug use (particularly among youth), with particular emphasis on the use of “hard drugs” such as cocaine, LSD, speed and heroin.

Reduce high-risk patterns of alcohol and other drug use, including the inappropriate use of inhalants, medications, and performance-enhancing sport drugs.

Identify and promote best practices in substance-abuse prevention, education, treatment and rehabilitation.

Reduce the illegal importation of illicit drugs.

Reduce the reported availability of illicit drugs at the street level.

Reduce the ability of persons involved in the supply and trafficking of drugs to make use of the profits of their illegal actions.

To achieve these goals and objectives, seven components have been selected to provide the framework for Canada’s Drug Strategy:

Health Canada is the lead department on Canada’s Drug Strategy. To coordinate the Strategy, Health Canada chairs the Assistant Deputy Ministers’ Steering Committee on Substance Abuse and interdepartmental committees such as the Interdepartmental Working Group on Substance Abuse. Coordination is key to the success of a federal drug strategy as numerous partners including 14 federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and addictions agencies, and non-governmental organizations are collaborating on Canada’s Drug Strategy. The Web site of Health Canada lists the following federal departments: Solicitor General, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Finance, Canadian Heritage, Justice, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Transport, Human Resources Development, Status of Women, Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Treasury Board, and Privy Council Office. However, only a few of these departments administer programs focused specifically on substance use related problems.

The Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch (HECSB), within Health Canada, is home to the Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy, the Office of Controlled Substances, the Office of Cannabis Medical Access, and the Drug Analysis Service which together share responsibility for the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme. HECSB is also home to the national strategy on tobacco control.

The Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy⁶⁷ (OCDS) is responsible for:

The Office of Controlled Substances works to ensure that drugs and controlled substances are not diverted for illicit use. The Office of Cannabis Medical Access co-ordinates the development of, and administers, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. The Drug Analysis Service provides expert advice and analytical support to law enforcement agencies by analyzing the content of substances and determining the quantity of illicit drugs seized by such agencies, as well as assisting in the investigation and dismantling of clandestine laboratories.⁶⁸

There are several other branches within Health Canada that are involved in some form or other with the use and harmful use of substances. The Population and Public Health Branch of Health Canada is concerned with numerous public health issues related in some way to substance use, such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, mental health, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAS/FAE)⁶⁹, medication and alcohol use by seniors, family violence prevention, and the safety and healthy development of children and youth.

As the federal government is the primary provider of health care to First Nations people and Inuit, the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada funds treatment services for on-reserve First Nations people and Inuit through the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program (NNADAP).

Health Canada reports the following current expenditures on the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme.⁷⁰

The expenditures above strictly reflect what Health Canada, the lead agency in charge of Canada’s Drug Strategy, spends on the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the programs offered through the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. It is clearly apparent to the Committee that Health Canada’s expenditures reflect severe financial cuts to Canada’s Drug Strategy since its creation in 1987 that have yet to be restored. It is also the Committee’s belief that the social and health costs associated with the harmful use of substances have not decreased during that period but have actually increased substantially.

According to the 2001 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 11 departments and agencies are currently actively involved in Canada’s Drug Strategy and “spend approximately $500 million annually to address illicit drug use in Canada.”⁷³ It is estimated that 95% of these expenditures are used for supply reduction (enforcement and interdiction) through the work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Correctional Service Canada and the Department of Justice.⁷⁴ However, the strategy is supposed to reflect a balance between reducing the supply of, and the demand for, drugs.⁷⁵ Many witnesses appearing before the Committee argued that the prime focus of Canada’s Drug Strategy has been supply reduction activities to the detriment of demand reduction measures. Federal departments appearing before the Committee were unable to provide details concerning the allocation of Canada’s Drug Strategy funding or to identify clearly the results of that investment. The Auditor General estimated the federal expenditures that address illicit drugs for 1999-2000 as follows:

ESTIMATED FEDERAL EXPENDITURES THAT ADDRESS ILLICIT DRUGS FOR 1999-2000⁷⁶

2. NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY: ACHIEVEMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS OF PHASE I (1987-1992)

Phase I of the National Drug Strategy (NDS) was not subject to a formal evaluation. Nonetheless, based on a review of official documents, some of the achievements of the NDS included:

Virtually no information was brought to the Committee’s attention with respect to shortcomings in the first phase of Canada’s Drug Strategy. However, based on a review of documentation, a lack of coordination at the interdepartmental level appears to have been the main weakness of Phase I of the Drug Strategy.

3. CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY: ACHIEVEMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS OF PHASE II (1992-1997)

Phase II of Canada’ s Drug Strategy (CDS) was subject to an evaluation, the final report of which was published in June 1997. Phase II saw a renewed emphasis on research with a national focus. For example, funds were used to conduct a second national survey on the use of alcohol and other drugs in 1994. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, in collaboration with the Addictions Research Foundation, published Canadian Profile 1994, an analysis of the national survey. The first comprehensive study of the health, social and economic costs associated with the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs was also published by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in 1996. Nonetheless, Phase II had important shortcomings as well and once again interdepartmental coordination was a major concern. For example, clear coordination goals were not set for Canada’s Drug Strategy Secretariat, which resulted in a disagreement among federal departments as to the role the Secretariat should play in relation to departments outside of Health Canada. Situated within Health Canada, the Secretariat was moved several times within the department’s organizational structure before finally being disbanded in the spring of 1996.⁸²

The final evaluation report concluded that:

4. CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY: ACHIEVEMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS OF PHASE III (1997-2002)

Health Canada’s evaluation of CDS Phase II revealed a number of key components that had to be implemented if Canada’s Drug Strategy was to be successful in the future. Were the lessons learned in Phase II taken into consideration and put into practice in Phase III? What has been achieved under Canada’s Drug Strategy since 1997?

The Committee had difficulty getting answers to these questions from Health Canada and other departments involved in the implementation of Canada’s Drug Strategy. The Committee received only anecdotal evidence and the testimony of a very small number of witnesses suggesting there had been a lot of good work done under the rubric of Canada’s Drug Strategy and that money had been well spent.⁹⁰ The Committee is seriously concerned with the apparent lack of information on the achievements and shortcomings of the federal drug strategy. Those concerns were echoed in the testimony of the Deputy Auditor General:

Departmental performance reports lack information on results. … The real weakness, however, is the lack of a comprehensive public report that tells parliamentarians and Canadians how well Canada — either federally or nationally — is managing the problem. Canada’s Drug Strategy needs clear, measurable objectives so that overall performance can be reported.⁹¹

Representatives of the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme (DSCSP) appeared before the Committee on two different occasions to respond to these concerns. Early into the Committee’s study, Dr. Jody Gomber, who at the time was the Director General of the DSCSP, stated that a lack of financial resources explains why no evaluation of Canada’s Drug Strategy has been undertaken since 1997.

But I think the question of how we measure our activities is a good one, and a very difficult one. Canada’s drug strategy phase one — and that was 1987-92 — had some specific goals and targets and a specific amount of funding associated with it. Likewise, the second phase had specific goals and targets and funding associated with it. When the funding for those projects ran out, Canada’s Drug Strategy, the document, was published, but unfortunately, there was not a great deal of funding available to do things like evaluate the effectiveness of the activities that had gone on. So I agree with you that it’s important to evaluate those things, but unfortunately, there has not been much opportunity to do that.⁹²

Near the conclusion of the Committee’s study, Mr. Dann Michols, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, further explained how Health Canada, notwithstanding the fact that it is CDS lead agency, does not have the authority to evaluate how other federal departments are spending their dollars or how they are fulfilling their mandate under Canada’s Drug Strategy.

Health Canada is responsible for the coordination of the drug strategy. We cannot go into a department. We cannot analyze its books. We cannot pull out the information. We coordinate a team, if you like, that has to come together, realizing that the goal is important, and has the resources to do it. It may be a function not of the fact that they don’t want to supply that information, but that they may just not have the wherewithal by which to collect it, analyze it, and disseminate it.⁹³

The Committee recognizes that budget cuts have adversely affected the monitoring of Canada’s Drug Strategy. Unfortunately, in a context of fiscal constraint, delivering programs takes priority over any long-term evaluation expenditures. However, testimony before the Committee suggests that the Government of Canada and Parliament’s failure to make the harmful use of substances a priority would also explain why this issue has been so neglected in recent years.

Many witnesses appearing before the Committee, as well as the 2001 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, raised concerns about the federal government’s efforts to address the use and harmful use of substances within the context of Canada’s Drug Strategy. Some of the concerns expressed include:

The Committee had the opportunity to travel to major cities across Canada and see first-hand the devastation caused by the harmful use of substances in the current policy and legal environment. It acknowledges all the above shortcomings of the latest phase of Canada’s Drug Strategy. The Committee also recognizes that, as noted in the 2001 Report of the Auditor General, “[m]anaging the illicit drug problem in Canada is inherently difficult. It requires the efforts of three levels of government — federal, provincial/territorial and municipal — and many non-government organizations.”⁹⁴ Given Canada’s constitutional division of powers, the implementation of a consistent federal drug strategy dealing with the harmful use of substances is indeed made more challenging and calls for all orders of government to work together.

The Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces power to legislate in the fields of health care, education, provincial jails, and the administration of the courts; while giving Parliament power over criminal law and procedure, as well as the management of penitentiaries. Parliament exercises its authority to pass laws regulating the sale, distribution and possession of psychoactive substances through the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Responsibility for providing health care and, therefore, treatment and rehabilitation for substance dependence, falls primarily to the provinces.

Although the federal government contributes funds toward the provision of health care, including treatment for substance dependence, and Health Canada provides leadership in the formulation of a federal response to the problem of the harmful use of substances and dependence, there are constitutional constraints that limit the federal government’s ability to act in certain spheres. For example, Health Canada may conduct public awareness campaigns, develop materials, and make suggestions for delivering education and prevention programs in schools. However, the provinces ultimately have the power to develop curricula that may or may not incorporate those suggestions. Similarly, while the federal government may encourage physicians and pharmacists to develop reporting systems that would allow for closer monitoring of prescription drugs so as to limit their misuse and their diversion into the illicit market, the regulation of those professions is under the control of the provinces.

In light of the constitutional context, the development of effective federal policies for dealing with the use and harmful use of substances, and dependence, will depend very much on the federal government’s ability to demonstrate leadership and vision within its own jurisdiction and to effectively coordinate a renewed and well-funded Canadian drug strategy. However, as the provinces, territories and municipalities play a key role in dealing with the use and harmful use of substances, the success of Canada’s Drug Strategy will also rest on the federal government’s ability to elicit co-operation and to work in partnership with other orders of government.

I think the major role of the federal government ... since most of the costs are not borne by the federal government other than the specialized drug enforcement, most of the costs are borne by the provinces through health care services and ordinary police forces and law enforcement agencies. I think the best role the federal government can play is to provide national co-ordination and leadership and a research base to avoid the inefficiencies of people duplicating effort throughout the country, standardization of measures, things like that, and basically
identify where the next things should go. A drug strategy should focus specifically on new and innovative programming. It should be the rudder that steers the ship. It’s not the ship itself.⁹⁵

A grave concern expressed by the vast majority of witnesses and acknowledged by the Committee relates to the consequences of the cutbacks in funding on Canada’s Drug Strategy. Many witnesses have argued that financial cuts have been so severe that the year 1997-1998 marks, in fact, the sunset of Canada’s Drug Strategy:

This parliamentary Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs has a very important mandate. Indeed, the field of addictions in Canada is looking to you to serve as a catalyst for action and leadership from the federal government. As I am sure others have stated, Canada does not have a national drug strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have a national drug strategy.⁹⁶

In response to an inquiry from the Committee, Health Canada stated, “since 1997, the level of activity by the Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy (OCDS) and its partners has been reduced. The office focuses predominantly on: legal obligations, international commitments, rehabilitation and critical issues such as injection drug use.”⁹⁷ Cutbacks in funding may have further exacerbated the imbalance between demand and supply reduction, as measures targeting the demand for substances appear to have been more affected by the cuts in funding than enforcement measures aimed at reducing the supply of illicit substances.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) was particularly affected by the cuts in funding. In 1988, the CCSA had received an initial annual grant from the federal government of $2 million as a minimum base of funding to set up the Centre and to leverage investments from other orders of government and non-governmental organizations. With the effective sunset of Canada’s Drug Strategy in 1997, its budget was reduced by 75% to $500,000. The Centre has survived primarily through contract-based services. Mounting financial and human resource pressures continue to threaten the existence of the CCSA.⁹⁸ Nonetheless, the Centre has managed to deliver services and position itself both nationally and internationally as Canada’s focal point for substance abuse matters. In 2002, Health Canada increased the Centre’s funding to $1.5 million as an interim measure awaiting the implementation of a new federal drug strategy. The Committee acknowledges the sustained efforts of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and believes its legislated mandate continues to be relevant and crucial
to the future success of a renewed Canadian drug strategy. The CCSA will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, which deals specifically with research, information and knowledge management.

5. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

In Canada, in the last decade, findings of concurrent harmful use of substances and mental health disorders have increased; the number of individuals dependent on substances who also suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects is more apparent; the number of injection drug users who are HIV positive, have AIDS or Hepatitis C has increased; poly-drug use is a growing trend; use of synthetic designer drugs is on the rise; and traditional views on the harmful use of substances, and dependence, are constantly being challenged by new research into the bio-psycho-social aspects of alcohol and substance use problems. The Committee believes that investing in a renewed Canadian drug strategy is critical and will contribute to reducing the demand for, and consequently, the supply of substances, as well as reducing the spread of infectious diseases and the social and health costs associated with the harmful use of substances.

The renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy must be comprehensive, integrated, balanced and sustainable and include alcohol, tobacco, illicit substances and pharmaceutical drugs. The cornerstone of a renewed drug strategy must remain the long-term goal of reducing the harm associated with alcohol, tobacco and other substances to individuals, families and communities. The guiding principles, short-term goals, objectives, performance indicators and strategic plan should be determined by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in consultation with representatives from Health Canada, concerned departments of all orders of government, non-governmental agencies dedicated to addictions, the private sector as well as drug/substance users. A shared decision-making process involving key stakeholders across the country will enhance co-operation and ensure a higher level of visibility for the renewed federal drug strategy. The Government of Canada should take immediate action to ensure that a well-funded federal drug strategy will be in place by summer 2003.

High priority should be given to the development of a strategy that would include:

6. OVERSEEING CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY

Given the need for fiscal and program accountability, and for ongoing evaluations of Canada’s Drug Strategy, the Committee believes that there must be a change in structure and reporting mechanisms to better reflect Parliament’s commitment to addressing the harmful use of substances in Canada. Because the relevant issues cut across many aspects of society, responsibility for implementing a federal drug strategy is shared by various federal departments and agencies. The Committee believes that shared responsibility in this instance has led to a diffusion of fiscal accountability. The resulting lack of comprehensive budget information was pointed out in the 2001 Report of the Auditor General. For that reason, the Committee recommends the appointment of a Canadian Drug Commissioner, independent of any federal department or agency, to oversee Canada’s Drug Strategy. The Canadian Drug Commissioner must be mandated to monitor, investigate and audit the implementation of the strategy, and to report and make recommendations annually to Parliament through the Speaker of the House of Commons.

An Act of Parliament should establish the Canadian Drug Commissioner’s position and define his mandate, basic functions and powers, as well as the organizational structure of his office. The Committee suggests that the Governor in Council appoint the Canadian Drug Commissioner, preferably with a background in health issues, for a term not exceeding five years and that the budget for the office of the Canadian Drug Commissioner be set at $1.5 million per year.

The Canadian Drug Commissioner’s role would be to assist parliamentarians in overseeing the implementation and progress of a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy by providing them with an objective, independent analysis as well as by making recommendations for further necessary action to ensure the success of Canada’s Drug Strategy. To facilitate the work of the Canadian Drug Commissioner, federal departments and agencies would be required to prepare action plans outlining how they will implement Canada’s Drug Strategy. The Commissioner would then monitor the extent to which departments and agencies implement these actions plans and meet the objectives of Canada’s Drug Strategy.

Who should implement the new federal drug strategy? Many key stakeholders testified before the Committee that it is appropriate that Health Canada continue to take primary responsibility for the multi-departmental implementation of Canada’s Drug Strategy, so as to reinforce the message that the harmful use of substances, and dependence, are primarily health issues. The Committee agrees but would like to see a higher priority placed on that portfolio, with an enhanced public profile and greater accountability. Consequently, the Committee believes that the Minister of Health should be mandated to respond to the Canadian Drug Commissioner’s annual report in an annual statement to the Standing Committee on Health, through the House of Commons.

7. COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS - CANADA’S DRUG STRATEGY

The Committee observed the following:

A renewed well-funded federal drug strategy is desperately needed if we are to ensure the best possible health for Canadians and their communities.

A renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy must include clear and measurable goals and objectives, and require comprehensive evaluations to ensure that these goals and objectives are being met.

The primary focus of Canada’s Drug Strategy in recent years has been on reducing the supply of illicit substances to the detriment of federal resources being invested in reducing demand. In part, this is the result of program restraints and cutbacks in funding. A renewed federal drug strategy must reflect a more appropriate balance between the goals of reducing the demand for, and the supply of substances.

Overall, a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy must focus on a health-based approach.

The observations and recommendations of the Auditor General’s report on the federal government’s role with respect to illicit drugs clearly reflect what this Committee has heard and seen in the course of its study. A lack of coordination among federal departments and other orders of government, a lack of accountability, a lack of information, a lack of evaluation and a lack of cohesion have indeed hindered the implementation of Canada’s Drug Strategy.

A Canadian Drug Commissioner is needed to ensure the implementation of effective and consistent policy responses to the use and harmful use of substances in Canada and to ensure that federal departments and agencies are fulfilling their obligations in conformity with Canada’s Drug Strategy.

To be successful, Canada’s Drug Strategy must engage partnerships with other orders of government and key stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada reaffirm its commitment to addressing the use and harmful use of substances and dependence, by developing, in consultation with provincial/territorial governments and key stakeholders, a renewed, comprehensive, coordinated and integrated Canadian drug strategy to address the use of illicit substances and licit (or legal) substances such as alcohol, tobacco, inhalants and prescription drugs.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Committee recommends that a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy include clear, measurable goals and objectives as well as a process for evaluation and accountability, and, with these components in place, that adequate and sustained funding be allocated.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Committee recommends the appointment of a Canadian Drug Commissioner, statutorily mandated to monitor, investigate and audit the implementation of a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy and to report and make recommendations annually to Parliament, through the Speaker of the House of Commons.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Health be mandated to coordinate the multi-departmental implementation of a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy and to respond to the Canadian Drug Commissioner’s report within 90 days in an annual statement to the Standing Committee on Health, through the House of Commons.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Committee recommends the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, as an independent non-governmental organization, be given the mandate to develop, in consultation with federal, provincial and territorial governments and key stakeholders, the goals, the objectives, the performance indicators and the strategic plan for a renewed Canada’s Drug Strategy, which shall be comprehensive, coordinated and integrated.