| Summary: | The establishment of supervised consumption sites (SCS) is one policy approach used to address Canada’s growing, national opioid epidemic. Despite the abundance of evidence which demonstrates the numerous public health benefits gained from the existence of SCS, only five of ten Canadian provinces have established SCS. Using Alberta and Manitoba as comparators, the paper seeks to explain the difference in policy outcomes. The paper begins with a brief overview of the history of harm reduction policy in Canada and establishes what the goals of the Alberta and Manitoba governments were in their respective policy approaches to respond to the opioid epidemic. Using John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, this paper compares the political and policy contexts of Alberta and Manitoba to determine what factors have contributed to the divergence in policy outcomes, whereby Alberta has established SCS while Manitoba has not. The comparative analysis reveals that the framing of the opioid epidemic as a public health matter, the alignment of the establishment of SCS with the provincial government’s values, and political will are all necessary conditions for the establishment of SCS. This paper concludes by discussing the implications of these results for the establishment of SCS in other Canadian provinces.
|
|---|
